ERC-191 vs ERC-1484

Signed Data Standard compared with Digital Identity Aggregator.

No shared functions

0 shared · 1 vs 26 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-1484 lists ERC-191 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

0x110eb0a3 signatureBasedExecution(address,uint256,bytes,uint8,bytes32,bytes32)

`0x3aedf3c9`	`addAssociatedAddress(address,address,uint8,bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0xab5f6781`	`addAssociatedAddressDelegated(address,address,uint8[2],bytes32[2],bytes32[2],uint256[2])`
`0x7d079951`	`addProviders(address[])`
`0x960b11f5`	`addProvidersFor(uint256,address[])`
`0xe846fd91`	`addResolvers(address[])`
`0x010887dc`	`addResolversFor(uint256,address[])`
`0x268e8970`	`createIdentity(address,address[],address[])`
`0x14fb5646`	`createIdentityDelegated(address,address,address[],address[],uint8,bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0x05c62c2f`	`getEIN(address)`
`0x85e3f058`	`getIdentity(uint256)`
`0x237f1a21`	`hasIdentity(address)`
`0x5b5aed3a`	`identityExists(uint256)`
`0xa687662d`	`isAssociatedAddressFor(uint256,address)`
`0x53a9698a`	`isProviderFor(uint256,address)`
`0xd4b1cdcc`	`isResolverFor(uint256,address)`
`0x8677ebe8`	`isSigned(address,bytes32,uint8,bytes32,bytes32)`
`0x3b4656a1`	`removeAssociatedAddress()`
`0xdd9ad9ed`	`removeAssociatedAddressDelegated(address,uint8,bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0x232e7d83`	`removeProviders(address[])`
`0x06c93c36`	`removeProvidersFor(uint256,address[])`
`0xb8a5c2a6`	`removeResolvers(address[])`
`0x5726f660`	`removeResolversFor(uint256,address[])`
`0xfa57b576`	`triggerDestruction(uint256,address[],address[],bool)`
`0x8e1bb633`	`triggerRecovery(uint256,address,uint8,bytes32,bytes32,uint256)`
`0x1bfe3508`	`triggerRecoveryAddressChange(address)`
`0x2501faa5`	`triggerRecoveryAddressChangeFor(uint256,address)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-191 · ERC-1484