Closed 3esmit closed 2 years ago
Related to #662
This seems very similar to the authority pattern: https://github.com/ethpm/escape/blob/master/contracts/Authority.sol
Seems unnecessary for all non PoA chains.
@VoR0220 I think you miss understood the reason of this. BTW, the propsed ABI is not fixed yet, I'll develop a some implementations of Permission for Identity (#725), such as DeadManSwitch, and MultiSig
There has been no activity on this issue for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.
This issue was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.
Summary
Permissions are contracts that allow controlled actions from other addresses.
Abstract
ERC #725 Identity can contain Keys that performs actions over the Identity. In order to limit actions of authorized addresses in behalf of the Identity, the Permission contract would be crafted specifically for each dapp demanding control of Identity.
Motivation
The need of different types of permissioning for ERC725, that are unique for each use-case, are not scope of ERC725. The standardization of the permissions would help wallets understand the agreements proposed by DApps, although, as in Identity and other standards, the source code of DApp must be trusted by users and this standards only help easier coupling between contracts and UI. If a Identity is controlled by Permission contract then it could understand the options. Other implementation under would be 'Account recovery','Dead man switch','Multisig', 'Daily-limit'.
Definitions
Other definitions are up to the use-case.
Specification