ERC-721 vs ERC-8065

Non-Fungible Token Standard compared with Zero Knowledge Token Wrapper.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

1 shared · 10 vs 12 functions · 10% of the smaller surface

ERC-8065 lists ERC-721 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (1)

0x01ffc9a7 supportsInterface(bytes4)

`0x095ea7b3`	`approve(address,uint256)`
`0x70a08231`	`balanceOf(address)`
`0x081812fc`	`getApproved(uint256)`
`0xe985e9c5`	`isApprovedForAll(address,address)`
`0x6352211e`	`ownerOf(uint256)`
`0xb88d4fde`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256,bytes)`
`0x42842e0e`	`safeTransferFrom(address,address,uint256)`
`0xa22cb465`	`setApprovalForAll(address,bool)`
`0x23b872dd`	`transferFrom(address,address,uint256)`

`0x9e48ff5a`	`deposit(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0x4e4efa41`	`getCommitLeafCount(uint256)`
`0x087e81a4`	`getCommitLeaves(uint256,uint256,uint256)`
`0x6bbb8620`	`getLatestCommitment(uint256)`
`0x9816f473`	`getUnderlying()`
`0x15b9f00e`	`hasCommitment(uint256,bytes32)`
`0x25bc3a17`	`previewDeposit(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xfde6c4a9`	`previewRemint(address,uint256,uint256,(bytes32,bytes32[],bytes,bytes,bool,bytes))`
`0xefb2150d`	`previewWithdraw(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xe01d9118`	`remint(address,uint256,uint256,(bytes32,bytes32[],bytes,bytes,bool,bytes))`
`0x0bd0ca9a`	`withdraw(address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-721 · ERC-8065