Update EIP-1: Reference ERCs by ERC-X

[Pandapip1]

Changes EIP-1 to force ERCs to be referenced as ERC-X instead of EIP-X.

NOTE: I honestly don't actually care if this change is implemented (in fact, I lean slightly towards keeping ERC references as EIP-X). I am just making this PR so that the appropriate action can be taken immediately once a consensus is reached.

[eth-bot]

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

---

(fail) eip-1.md

classification
updateEIP

• Changes to EIP 1 require at least 5 unique approvals from editors; there's currently 2 approvals; the remaining editors are @axic, @lightclient, @gcolvin

[MicahZoltu]

We should turn off EIPW for EIP-1. I don't particularly care on this one either, I'll defer to others.

[SamWilsn]

We should turn off EIPW for EIP-1.

Done in #5278

[lightclient]

As one of the main proponents for referring to EIPs in the ERC category, I'm a 👍 on this.

[SamWilsn]

I am once again reiterating my dislike for this change 🤣

If we're determined to go ahead with it, I prefer this wording.

[github-actions]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

@lightclient are you still happy with these changes?

[github-actions]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

I think this is still something @lightclient and @gcolvin want

[lightclient]

We really need to do this. Many people in the community are becoming confused by our backtracking of ERC => EIP.

[poojaranjan]

Just for the record, I am not a fan of this idea, as I think that all other Standard Track EIPs are still documented as EIP and so should be Standard Track ERC. Community are free to call EIP-20 or ERC-20 as per their convenience.

However, if people agree to go with changing the documentation in EIP-1 as ERC-x, I'd like to see the change in the .md file of respective proposals to avoid confusion.

[SamWilsn]

As promised, here's the eipw implementation: ethereum/eipw#48

---

I'm still opposed.

[xinbenlv]

Documenting discussion: this issue was discussed on EIPIP Meeting 69. The resolution is

1. @lightclient and @xinbenlv expressed in favor
2. @SamWilsn continue to feel against, but is now open to further discuss in discord, if there is a strong consensus in favor of this PR, he will not block it.

@poojaranjan and everyone correct me if I was wrong

[Pandapip1]

I am also -0 (not in favor, but not blocking).

[github-actions]

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[Pandapip1]

Dismissing stale bot.

[SamWilsn]

😾