Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change signed delegate action format to avoid confusing it with other things that might be signed by an account key #8271

Closed
Tracked by #8075
jakmeier opened this issue Dec 22, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #8578
Assignees
Labels
T-integrations Team: issues relevant to the integrations team

Comments

@jakmeier
Copy link
Contributor

jakmeier commented Dec 22, 2022

Signing a meta transaction using an account key can be problematic, as the signed message could be used in a different context where account keys are also used for signing. For now, only transactions are signed with the account key but that is likely to change in the future.

@jakmeier jakmeier changed the title change signed delegate action format to avoid confusing it with other things that might be signed by an account key Change signed delegate action format to avoid confusing it with other things that might be signed by an account key Dec 22, 2022
@jakmeier jakmeier added the T-integrations Team: issues relevant to the integrations team label Dec 22, 2022
@jakmeier
Copy link
Contributor Author

In the protocol discussion today, @abacabadabacaba presented his ideas how to solve this and we reached an agreement to use the first ~4 bytes of a message to define the type of the message. Conflicts with today's representation of a transactions can be avoided because a transaction start with the length of the account ID, which is always between 2 and 64.

A NEP will have to be created to define the exact scheme and also allocate a type number to meta transactions.

Before we can stabilize meta transactions, we will have to update the implementation to be in line with this yet-to-be-written NEP.

@jakmeier
Copy link
Contributor Author

A NEP draft for this has started now: near/NEPs#461

To work on the issue at hand, we will most likely implement whatever that NEP ends up specifying once it is finalized and approved.

@jakmeier jakmeier linked a pull request Feb 20, 2023 that will close this issue
@jakmeier jakmeier self-assigned this Feb 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
T-integrations Team: issues relevant to the integrations team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant