Closed mihaisc closed 3 years ago
I think we can ignore networkId, each chain has one mainnet and that's the only networm that matters. Sbould we have this for accounts? If you add an account on one chain, wouldn't we want that account to be in purgatory on all chains?
I think we can ignore networkId, each chain has one mainnet and that's the only networm [sic] that matters.
That's not quite how it works in EVM-land.
Here's how it works:
Therefore the proposal to add "chainid" to list-assets.json structure makes sense to me.
Sbould we have this for accounts? If you add an account on one chain, wouldn't we want that account to be in purgatory on all chains?
I don't believe we need it for accounts, for the reason you mention. Therefore we only need to add "chainid" to list-assets.json structure. For list-accounts.json, an account listed would be in purgatory in every chain.
updated description
lgtm
Agree, for some reason i was under the impression that chainId an networkId are different
We might not even need to capture network info for assets. Cause what exactly is the purpose of adding chainId
for each asset if DIDs are already unique? From the purgatory API consumer perspective we do not care about the network, market
asks for a DID and if it comes back marks asset as being in purgatory. From that perspective I don't see much reason to add it, except for some reference reasons.
You are right, from a technical point of view it will just work. We can add the chainId
just for reference.
Are we 100% sure that the did will be unique between chains?
The address of a given datatoken will be different on each chain, because of how the factory works + how bridges work.
I want to understand better: did
is a function of the address on the chain it was published, correct? And: I believe @alexcos20 had some concerns about dids across chains, can you share them here Alex?
Purgatory must work on all chains and must be properly defined.
Issue to resolve: have one repo for each network, or a different one?
Discussion from standup 20210310: have a single repo that supports all chains at once. Otherwise we get madness of >>1 repos as we go to many chains.
Alex update:
Proposal:
New list-assets.json structure: