You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently every blockchain integration has a multisig managing the config contract.
This leads to several things:
Adding new chains is slower then it should be as we have to rewrite the multisig for every single VM having a threshold signature would mean we just need to implement a verify method instead
Having to reimplement the multisig implementation also allows for more bugs and vulnerabilities plus increases cost of audit, having a unified implementation mitigates this a lot.
All the votes are currently public and visible, but with the replacement we would make just the end result public instead.
The only question which is tricky is the addition and removal of members which is currently pretty straight-forward, but we would have to have some refresh calculation on the protocol level when people are added or removed.
This is something we have to implement in the future, but not critical at the moment. cc: @xilosada@alenmestrov@miraclx
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Also, this should become an improvement proposal and potentially a bounty.
chefsale
changed the title
Replace multisig in the config contract with a threshold signature
CIP: Replace multisig in the config contract with a threshold signature
Nov 28, 2024
chefsale
changed the title
CIP: Replace multisig in the config contract with a threshold signature
CIP1: Replace multisig in the config contract with a threshold signature
Nov 28, 2024
Currently every blockchain integration has a multisig managing the config contract.
This leads to several things:
This is something we have to implement in the future, but not critical at the moment. cc: @xilosada @alenmestrov @miraclx
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: