Abstract - Abstract is a multi-sentence (short paragraph) technical summary. This should be a very terse and human-readable version of the specification section. Someone should be able to read only the abstract to get the gist of what this specification does.
A multi-party "straight-up" sports-betting platform for professional football in the NFL (National Football League) with one additional wrinkle.
Traditional sports-betting between two individual parties requires one of the two parties to place a wager on the outcome of a sporting event, typically the final score. The second party, if willing, accepts, wagering the same amount on the opposing outcome of the event.
The "wrinkle" here is that a single wager can be made to be "matched" to multiple parties willing to accept the opposing outcome. The rationale here is that there exists parties that want to wager far more than it is economical for another single party. This is typically a challenge to do in the analog world and its books, but more trivial in one that is digital and automated and enforceable.
Motivation (*optional) - A motivation section is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. EIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
[WIP]
Specification - The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Ethereum platforms (cpp-ethereum, go-ethereum, parity, ethereumJ, ethereumjs-lib, and others.
- two parties
- for testing purposes, any single party may play against the house
- ? odds setting
- for testing purposes, any single party may play against the house
- TODO
Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
- consensus will come from an oracle
- objections & concerns
Backwards Compatibility - All EIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The EIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. EIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
[WIP]
Test Cases - Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for EIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Tests should either be inlined in the EIP as data (such as input/expected output pairs, or included in ../assets/eip-###/.
[WIP]
Reference Implementation - An optional section that contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to assist in understanding or implementing this specification.
[WIP]
Security Considerations - All EIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life-cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. EIP submissions missing the “Security Considerations” section will be rejected. An EIP cannot proceed to status “Final” without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
[WIP]