Title: Supporting_EIP_3085_with_a_ERC_4337_wallet
Category: Magicians

Author: ajhodges
Date: 2024-07-15T18:12:50.109Z

There is currently a gap in the interface between dapps and ERC-4337 wallets; support for network addition via EIP-3085 wallet_addEthereumChain. In order for a 4337 wallet to function with an arbitrary chain, it needs to be provided with an RPC URL that can serve the 4337-specific RPC methods.
I see a few potential paths forward here:

Reuse EIP-3085 EthereumChainAddRequest.rpcUrls by leveraging the fact that a dapp can already provide multiple RPC providers with the existing interface

We could specify the ordering of these URLs, i.e. the first one is always the bundler, and subsequent ones are always general-purpose RPCs
We could define a prefix to be added the bundler URL so that the wallet can identify it


Standardize around a single RPC URL - the RPC provider passed via 3085 should handle both traditional as well as 4337-specific RPC methods

Some bundlers such as Alchemy already work in this way. Others (i.e. Pimlico) expressly do not.
Dapps may need to build a JSON RPC reverse proxy depending on their bundler provider.


Extend EIP-3085 EthereumChainAddRequest

Add an rpcMetadata mapping of RPC URLs to metadata (maybe a dictionary with e.g. "supports4337": true)
Add a bundlerRpcUrls parameter



I would love to hear from anyone else who is already thinking about this!

Author: spencerstock
Date: 2024-07-15T21:26:02.557Z

Nice ideas.I like 1 and 3, slight lean towards 1.
It may be a can of worms from a security perspective, given that the bundler can act maliciously and attack users who send userOps to them. When a wallet saves a malicious bundler it would use that bundler for all future userOps across all dapps.
One angle to consider because of the security benefits would be to have bundlers expose a method for adding arbitrary ethereum chains. This would more closely mirror the risk profile of today’s implementation. Not saying this is the way forward, just an angle to discuss.

Author: darion
Date: 2024-08-15T22:41:04.999Z

Are bundlers uniquely dangerous compared to a normal RPC node that broadcasts transactions?

Author: dror
Date: 2024-08-21T14:55:57.910Z

spencerstock:

It may be a can of worms from a security perspective, given that the bundler can act maliciously and attack users who send userOps to them


A bundler can’t attack a user, more than a node can attack: it can’t modify the UserOp in any way. The only thing it can do is (just like a node) to drop the UserOp, and thus performs a denial-of-service.
In such case, the user should switch to a more reputable bundler.
A bundler is intended to be an extension api to a node. It is a separate RPC since (by design) erc-4337 doesn’t require any change to existing nodes.
A bundler can support the entire RPC calls range, but it would require it to proxy all non-4337 requests to a real node, which might be a burden. We defined only the eth_chainId as a required duplicate RPC call, to determine the bundler is for the right chain.
Reporting bundlers in the “urls” list might be good, though the app should be able to detect which URLS support which API.
possible suggestion is to mark a bundler by appending #erc4337 at the end of the url.