forked from DecentralizedClimateFoundation/DCIPs
71 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
71 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
eip: 5806
|
||
|
|
title: Delegate transaction
|
||
|
|
description: Adds a new transaction type that allows a EOAs to execute arbitrary code through delegation
|
||
|
|
author: Hadrien Croubois (@Amxx)
|
||
|
|
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-5806-delegate-transaction/11409
|
||
|
|
status: Draft
|
||
|
|
type: Standards Track
|
||
|
|
category: Core
|
||
|
|
created: 2022-10-20
|
||
|
|
requires: 2718, 2930
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Abstract
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This EIP adds a new transaction type that allows EOAs to execute arbitrary code using a delegate-call-like mechanism.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Motivation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Account abstraction has been extensively discussed but the path toward mainstream adoption is still unclear. Some approaches, such as [EIP-4337](./eip-4337.md) hope to improve the usability of smart wallets, without addressing the issue of smart wallet support by applications. [EIP-3074](./eip-3074.md) proposes another approach that favors existing EOAs but comes with replay risks.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This EIP proposes a simpler approach that addresses some of the objectives of account abstraction for EOAs with minimal change over the EVM. By allowing EOAs to perform delegate calls to a contract (similarly to how contracts can delegate calls to other contracts using [EIP-7](./eip-7.md)), EOAs will be able to have more control over what operations they want to execute.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Performing a delegate call to a multicall contract (such as the one deployed to `0xcA11bde05977b3631167028862bE2a173976CA11`), EOAs would be able to batch multiple transactions into a single one, while being the `msg.sender` of all the sub calls. Other unforeseen logic could be implemented in smart contracts and used by EOA. This includes emitting events, using storage under the EOA's account, or even deploying contracts using `create2`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This EIP doesn't aim to replace other account abstraction proposals. It hopes to be an easy-to-implement alternative that would significantly improve the user experience of EOA owners in the near future.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Specification
|
||
|
|
The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Parameters
|
||
|
|
- `FORK_BLKNUM` = `TBD`
|
||
|
|
- `TX_TYPE` = TBD, > 0x02 ([EIP-1559](./eip-1559.md))
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
As of `FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER`, a new [EIP-2718](./eip-2718.md) transaction is introduced with `TransactionType` = `TX_TYPE(TBD)`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The intrinsic cost of the new transaction is inherited from [EIP-2930](./eip-2930.md), specifically `21000 + 16 * non-zero calldata bytes + 4 * zero calldata bytes + 1900 * access list storage key count + 2400 * access list address count`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The [EIP-2718](./eip-2718.md) `TransactionPayload` for this transaction is
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, destination, data, access_list, signature_y_parity, signature_r, signature_s])
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The definitions of all fields share the same meaning with [EIP-1559](./eip-1559.md). Note the absence of `amount` field in this transaction!
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The `signature_y_parity, signature_r, signature_s` elements of this transaction represent a secp256k1 signature over `keccak256(0x02 || rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, destination, data, access_list]))`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The [EIP-2718](./eip-2718.md) `ReceiptPayload` for this transaction is `rlp([status, cumulative_transaction_gas_used, logs_bloom, logs])`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The execution of this new transaction type is equivalent to the delegate call mechanism introduced in [EIP-7](./eip-7.md), but performed by an EOA (the transaction sender). This implies that the code present at `destination`, if any, should be executed in the context of the sender. As a consequence, such a transaction can set and read storage under the EOA. It can also emit an event from the EOA.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Rationale
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
EOAs are the most widely used type of wallet.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This EIP would drastically expand the ability of EOAs to interact with smart contracts by using the pre-existing and well-understood delegation mechanism introduced in [EIP-7](./eip-7.md) and without adding new complexity to the EVM.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Backwards Compatibility
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
No known backward compatibility issues thanks to the transaction envelope ([EIP-2718](./eip-2718.md))
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Security Considerations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The nonce mechanism, already used in other transaction types, prevents replay attacks. This makes this approach safer, but also less powerful than [EIP-3074](./eip-3074.md).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Contracts being called through this mechanism can execute any operation on behalf of the signer. Signers should be extremely careful signing this transaction (just like any other transaction).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Copyright
|
||
|
|
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE.md).
|