draft new ERC for contract working with ts #430
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added redeemed text, compressed images
WIP add basic edcon draft TokenScript
WIP Alipay Samples
correct contracts swap
TS Template es.html front-end for 6/11 tickets WIP
fixed alipay styled css
EDCON Ticket Layout
added new background image
Blank ticket TS template
This may break the older build but since the only known tokenscript file that uses multiple views are UEFI, we might control the release schedule so those users who would hold such tokens gets new build.
Regarding 1. I actually deliberately didn't specify this flexibility since how I understood @weiwu-zhang an ERC like this should only specify the smallest amount of constraints to make things work (since apparently ERC implementor very quickly lose attention 😅). @weiwu-zhang what do you think? Should we update the ERC to allow for the more flexibility as @oleggrib suggest? (BTW I would agree with Oleg, that this provides the most complete standard). Regarding 2. I am not sure I completely understand what you suggest. You mean adding the option of allowing another key to control the smart contract? I think this is a bit out of the scope of ERC5XX0, but instead handled by ERC5XX1. Or maybe I am misunderstanding? |
added 2 commits
May 25, 2022 20:47
|
Options (I'd go for 2 and find an ERC to refer to, or an openzepplin convention).
|
…2nd ERC and it made the first ERC too wordy
1. Is this scriptURI() unique in one smart contract?
For example, in NFT smart contract can we define one scriptURI() per one tokenId?
** something like mapping(tokenId => scriptURI)
2. Regarding scriptURI struct, can we store hash of uri for transparency? It's some thing like below
struct ScriptURI {
string uri;
bytes32 scriptHash // for Authenticity // user can know if he executes correct script
}
3. In variables
script: The script supplying additional functionality to the tokens.
??? is it different from scriptURI?
4. In IERC 5XX0 interface
interface IERC5XX0 {
/// @dev Mee This event emits when the scriptURI is updated,
/// so wallets implementing this interface can update a cached script
event ScriptUpdate(string[] memory newScriptURI);
/// @notice Get the scriptURI for the contract
/// @return The scriptURI
function scriptURI() external view returns(string[] memory);
/// @notice Update the scriptURI
/// emits event ScriptUpdate(scriptURI memory newScriptURI);
function setScriptURI(string[] memory newScriptURI, bytes memory newSigScriptURI) external;
}
function setScriptURI(string[] memory newScriptURI, bytes memory newSigScriptURI) external;
== What is newSigScriptURI?
5. The smart contract implementing IERC5XX0 MUST set owner=msg.sender in its constructor.
== Does it means ownership is immutable in this smart contract? why only msg.sender?
1. the URI can be interpreted as the URI of the server API access point, if a server is involved in the client script. Change URI to downlaod-URI to avoid this.
2. added a point in Security Considerations that server API is not in the scope.
3. Explain why the client script need to be linked to a contract.
Removed these text (may add it later to a medium article The `scriptURI` points to decentralized immutable locations *or* the location itself contains information that can validate the script's authenticity. For example, the URI may point to a location on a blockchain, or, URI may contain a hash digest of the resource, such as with IPFS. In the first situation, the client (wallet) should assume it is authentic. In the latter case, the client must also validate that hash digest. If the `scriptURI` is a download link to a server, it may not contain a digest in the URI. In such a case, it may be desirable to return the digest in a struct together with the URI. This allows the caller to assert the client script is authentic after downloading it. However, igital Signature is a much better way to solve this problem.
|
@JamesSmartCell @weiwu-zhang what is the status on ERC 5XX0 and 5XX1? Are we continuing to keep this branch open and working on this until they are either accepted or rejected? |
|
@jot2re Yes it's still open EIP-5169: ethereum/EIPs#5169 It looks like 5169 is pretty much in order now, after a bit of to-and-fro, once (if) it is accepted then 5170 would follow, since it depends on 5169 to make sense. |
SmartLayer
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e54d791 to
1368554
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@JamesSmartCell this replaces https://github.com/TokenScript/ScriptURISubmission
@jot2re I deleted the https://github.com/TokenScript/ScriptURISubmission and this one you have permission to write.