Add BlockExplorer information

[ethereum-lists]

Add BlockExplorer information

[freeatnet]

@ligi I see what you mean now. I suspect only a few chains will have multiple explorers and, conversely, few explorers will support multiple chains. I’ll try to gather up some links.

[freeatnet]

Would it be reasonable to assume that all chain explorers would allow access by transaction hash and by wallet address of canonical formats?

If so, we could introduce something like key "explorers": [ <ExplorerEntry>, … ], with explorer entry consisting of:

{
  "name": "Etherscan",
  "logo": "", # optional
  "homepage": "https://etherscan.io/",
  "address": "https://etherscan.io/address/${address}",
  "tx": "https://etherscan.io/address/${txHash}",
  "block": "https://etherscan.io/address/${blockNumber}", # optional?
  "token": "https://etherscan.io/token/${address}" # definitely optional
}

[ligi]

Yes - I think this makes sense - perhaps even as a separate repo/dataset

[ligi]

wait no - sometimes the chain is part of the URL - that makes things more complicated.
But adding it to every chain is a lot of repitition

[freeatnet]

@ligi Sorry, do you mean adding a list of links would be a lot of repetition?

Also, would you happen to have some examples of other explorers?

[ligi]

yea it is then not using the structure of the urls like here:

https://github.com/komputing/KEthereum/tree/master/blockscout
https://github.com/komputing/KEthereum/tree/master/etherscan

these are also the only blockexplorers I worked with

but perhaps it is best to keep it this simple and ignore the WETness

[Garito]

Hi
Any progress with this?

[pedrouid]

Actually I've recently written a proposal regarding this topic: ethereum/EIPs#3091

Perhaps we could reach out to projects like Blockscout to provide corresponding redirects

Meanwhile we could already include Etherscan as it already matches the proposed API for EIP-3091

[Garito]

Nice... can't wait for it (kid face waiting like if it was the new toy)
Thanks

[Garito]

Now that metamask has added wallet_addEthereumChain with explorers included, is more than ever important to add this data
https://docs.metamask.io/guide/rpc-api.html#wallet-addethereumchain
Any idea when will be added?

[ligi]

How do you see this repo being used in combination with MM?

[Garito]

My to cents on the explorers I am using right now:

{
  1: 'https://etherscan.io/${type}/${value}',
  3: 'https://ropsten.etherscan.io/${type}/${value}',
  4: 'https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/${type}/${value}',
  5: 'https://gorli.etherscan.io/${type}/${value}',
  42: 'https://kovan.etherscan.io/${type}/${value}',
  56: 'https://bscscan.com/${type}/${value}',
  97: 'https://testnet.bscscan.com/${type}/${value}'
}

where type is the type of the request. I am using tx and address right now but I have noticed there are others you can use (would be nice if someone has found the complete list and share it here)

and value is the value of what you are looking for. The transaction hash for type tx or the address of the account or token for the type address

[Garito]

Seems that this is enough:

{
  1: 'https://etherscan.io',
  3: 'https://ropsten.etherscan.io',
  4: 'https://rinkeby.etherscan.io',
  5: 'https://gorli.etherscan.io',
  42: 'https://kovan.etherscan.io',
  56: 'https://bscscan.com',
  97: 'https://testnet.bscscan.com'
}

[ligi]

OK need to push this forward. I suggest the following:

{
    ...
	"explorers": [{
		"name": "etherscan",
		"url": "https://etherscan.io",
		"icon": [
		  // same as for chain icons
		],
		"standard": "EIP3091"
	}]
}

name, URL and standard are mandatory. icon can be an empty array
using @pedrouid s standard here prevents the duplication and is a forcing function to get block-explorers to unify.
wondering though if EIP3091 should be lifted out to an CAIP before we use it - would be more consistent and unopinionated I think

[tjayrush]

This doesn't really work for the case where the explorer is local such as ours (TrueBlocks).

Our explorer's URL is https://localhost:${port}/${type}/${value}.

But then what happens if a user has two such local explorers? Not both can be in your list since the name fields would be different (both would want to use localhost).

Perhaps it's okay to duplicates in the list based on URL? (Most likely not).

Don't forget that some explorers are actually decentralized and have nothing to do with a web 2.0 website.

[tjayrush]

This doesn't really work for the case where the explorer is local such as ours (TrueBlocks).

Our explorer's URL is https://localhost:${port}/${type}/${value}.

But then what happens if a user has two such local explorers? Not both can be in your list since the name fields would be different (both would want to use localhost).

Perhaps it's okay to duplicates in the list based on URL? (Most likely not).

Don't forget that some explorers are actually decentralized and have nothing to do with a web 2.0 website.

Bump?