My original question was posted on the Bitcoin integration thread:
Will this Etherium integration also include Etherium Classic (ETC)? I think it should because ETC is one of the last coins to be at the work layer and offers extra security. Not to mention the ability to utilize “Etherium” at a discounted price.
that is so awesome !!!
Good question. I am not aware of it working for ETC… but I will let the folks working on this reply with more knowledge
Is there a time line to complete development, testing, deployment, NNS voting?
(Clearly, we are updating these as we bring the engineering more into the open so thank you for your patience)
This project is meant to come AFTER the Bitcoin integration and the Threshold ECDSA Signatures proposal, so it has been moved down to be started after those are completed. I just updated the Summary to reflect this.
To see an example of a project which is more baked (and a model of how these proposals should look more like) check out the timeline thread on Increased Canister Storage: Increased Canister Storage - #13 by flyq
Hi everyone! I’m part of the team at DFINITY that will work on the Ethereum integration project, which, as Diego pointed out, will start a bit later.
Unfortunately, there is no time lime yet but we intend to post an update here once we get going.
It is not clear yet whether we will consider ETC. Please feel free to post (additional) arguments here why we should or shouldn’t include ETC in the design!
I would say do not include ETC in the design because it has significantly less usage than Ethereum and has been shown to be relatively insecure because of multiple 51% attacks. And my personal belief is that ETC will continue to fade into insignificance.
I am leaning that way too
@diegop will the direct integration also include listening to events from Ethereum smart contracts?
will the direct integration also include listening to events from Ethereum smart contracts?
Our current plan is to provide the means to call IC canisters from Ethereum smart contracts and return the results of these calls to Ethereum smart contracts (and possibly vice versa).
So, in some sense the answer to your question is “yes”, but the mechanism for such interactions is not fleshed out yet.
will direct-integration-with-ethereum support eth zk rollups like Polygon Hermez, Optimistic Rollups, Plasma , etc
Good question! I am not sure. Curious what @THLO says.
The goal of rollups is to perform (transaction) execution outside Ethereum, which is exactly what we plan to offer. In other words, our integration can be considered a “rollup”.
In a zero knowledge (zk) rollup, the layer 2 solution provides a proof of validity for its off-chain work. Responses from the Internet Computer can carry such proofs. In the simplest form, a threshold signature of the subnet is provided. If there is a need or interest from the community, other forms of validity proofs can be considered, of course.
Once the work of direct integration with Ethereum is completed, most blockchains based on ECDSA can and SHOULD be integrated. This will be the real Web3 infrastructure.
There are two kinds of account types in Ethereum(and in most other contract-supported blockchain):
- Externally-owned（EOA) – controlled by anyone with the private keys
- Contract – a smart contract deployed to the network, controlled by code. Learn about smart contracts
Most the prosperity and glory of Ethereum comes from contract, but it only can be used in Ethereum.
After directly integrated with Ethereum, even if it is an EOA, it will also support controlled by code, which is the canister on the IC, so all potentials and power of the smart contract, including composability, etc., will be owned by the external account.
Up to now, we still only got cheaper and more usable smart contracts.
But if all blockchains are integrated in this way, then complex cross-chains can be implemented through cross-canister calls. At that time, IC will become the execution layer and hubs of all blockchains! The real explosion of Web3 will begin here.
Hi is ICP have BEP20 Contracts?
Many other chains such as SOL，ada ，or Ethereum capacity expansion solution(L2,sidechain) . All their ERC20 transformations cost extremely expensive gas fees.
Will the gas for transferring assets from Ethereum network to ICP be reduced after integration ？
Would integrating to Casper Protocol take us closer to integration to Eth 2.0?
I’m not sure if I understand your question. ICP itself is not an ERC-20 token. So, it is not a BEP-20 token either because BEP-20 extends ERC-20 (if I’m not mistaken).
However, you can create any kind of contract/token on the Internet Computer, including BEP-20 compliant tokens.
Transfers that correspond to Ethereum transactions will still need to be paid. The idea is to run the big bulk of smart contract logic on the Internet Computer, which will be significantly cheaper than running it on Ethereum.
Bear in mind that Ethereum 2.0 only includes Casper-FFG (Friendly Finality Gadget), which is used to finalize blocks that are still added using the proof-of-work mechanism.
We haven’t looked into it deeply yet but it looks like the Ethereum integration will not require Casper - at least not in the foreseeable future.
If anybody has a different perspective, please share your insights here in the forum!
Does Ethereum’s amorphous timeline on shifting to proof of stake have any impact on the feasibility of integrating the IC w/ the ETH network?