error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 15 | This EIP introduces a new JSON-RPC method, `wallet_signIntendedValidatorData`, which allows signing data with an intended validator address using EIP-191 version 0x00 with this format: | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+` = help: see https://ethereum.github.io/eipw/markdown-link-first/

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 23 | Currently, signing messages relies heavily on EIP-191 version 0x45 (`eth_sign`) and EIP-712 (`eth_signTypedData`). While EIP-712 provides a more structured approach, it is often seen as complex. On the other hand, EIP-191 version 0x45 is widely used but poses significant phishing risks due to the lack of data parsing. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 23 | Currently, signing messages relies heavily on EIP-191 version 0x45 (`eth_sign`) and EIP-712 (`eth_signTypedData`). While EIP-712 provides a more structured approach, it is often seen as complex. On the other hand, EIP-191 version 0x45 is widely used but poses significant phishing risks due to the lack of data parsing. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 23 | Currently, signing messages relies heavily on EIP-191 version 0x45 (`eth_sign`) and EIP-712 (`eth_signTypedData`). While EIP-712 provides a more structured approach, it is often seen as complex. On the other hand, EIP-191 version 0x45 is widely used but poses significant phishing risks due to the lack of data parsing. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 23 | Currently, signing messages relies heavily on EIP-191 version 0x45 (`eth_sign`) and EIP-712 (`eth_signTypedData`). While EIP-712 provides a more structured approach, it is often seen as complex. On the other hand, EIP-191 version 0x45 is widely used but poses significant phishing risks due to the lack of data parsing. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 25 | EIP-191 defines three versions: 0x45, 0x01, and 0x00. This proposal aims to fully support EIP-191 by introducing the rpc call for 0x00 version, which enables signing data with an intended validator address. This new method will: | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 25 | EIP-191 defines three versions: 0x45, 0x01, and 0x00. This proposal aims to fully support EIP-191 by introducing the rpc call for 0x00 version, which enables signing data with an intended validator address. This new method will: | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 27 | - Enable more dApps to use EIP-191 version 0x00 without using raw signing methods which might be dangerous and restricted in few wallets. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 29 | - Provide a simpler alternative to EIP-712, offering a balance between usability and security. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-x.md | 32 | With the rise of smart contract accounts and the reliance on signatures to improve UX, the need for supporting EIP-191 version 0x00 increases, especially given the prevalence of verifier smart contracts, such as Entry Points, Smart Contract Accounts, Key Managers, etc. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

Process completed with exit code 1.

Unable to process file command 'env' successfully.

Invalid value. Matching delimiter not found 'EOF'

Canceling since a higher priority waiting request for 'Continuous Integration-8774' exists

The operation was canceled.

The following actions use a deprecated Node.js version and will be forced to run on node20: actions/upload-artifact@65d862660abb392b8c4a3d1195a2108db131dd05. For more info: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-run-on-node20-instead-of-node16-by-default/

The following actions use a deprecated Node.js version and will be forced to run on node20: actions/checkout@47fbe2df0ad0e27efb67a70beac3555f192b062f. For more info: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-run-on-node20-instead-of-node16-by-default/

The following actions use a deprecated Node.js version and will be forced to run on node20: actions/checkout@47fbe2df0ad0e27efb67a70beac3555f192b062f. For more info: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-run-on-node20-instead-of-node16-by-default/

The following actions use a deprecated Node.js version and will be forced to run on node20: actions/checkout@47fbe2df0ad0e27efb67a70beac3555f192b062f. For more info: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-run-on-node20-instead-of-node16-by-default/

The following actions use a deprecated Node.js version and will be forced to run on node20: actions/checkout@47fbe2df0ad0e27efb67a70beac3555f192b062f. For more info: https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-run-on-node20-instead-of-node16-by-default/