2

EIP86 and abstraction discussion is exciting for the future, but what are the things we could change first, to allow a contract to pay for gas?

For example, for the withdraw transactions on BabyZoE, they claimed to solve this issue with cryptoeconomics -- I think here the intended recipient instead hands over the zero-knowledge proof (of coins being transferred to himself) to a user who does have sufficient gas, and this user then submits the proof to the contract, and gets a little reward.

However, this isn't possible in all circumstances, and malicious users could just refuse to submit the proofs, very easily and lazily DoSing the contract.

So in the meantime, before the metropolis hardfork and introduction of EIP86, what would be the minimum possible changes that would allow contracts to pay for gas?

bekah
  • 1,099
  • 11
  • 17
  • 2
    When you say "what would be the minimum possible changes that would allow contracts to pay for gas?", are you asking how Ethereum could be changed, or are you asking the simplest way to write a contract where the user can be sure of getting refunded using Ethereum as it is now? – Edmund Edgar Jan 10 '17 at 03:26
  • 1
    Hi, is your question related to this? http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/281/how-will-regular-users-be-able-to-use-dapps-without-buying-ether – underdog Jan 10 '17 at 03:31
  • Probably answered here? Can contracts pay the gas instead of the message sender? or here? How will regular users be able to use dApps without buying ether? – q9f Jan 10 '17 at 09:31
  • Ah, sorry, thanks guys, I meant more 'what are the smallest changes to Ethereum's functioning now that would allow someone with no ether/gas to send a txn/call a contract' and how that would be remedied -- like eg JPMorgan's Quorum has gasprice = 0 at all times, but this still isn't enough to allow accounts with 0 balance to send a transaction, so I was wondering what the smallest change that would allow this is, or whether it requires all miners adopting Vitalik's suggested heuristic etc – bekah Jan 10 '17 at 10:42
  • @EdmundEdgar the former :) – bekah Jan 10 '17 at 10:42

0 Answers0