search

starknet-io / SNIPs

Starknet Improvement Proposal repository
MIT License
158 stars 99 forks source link

SNIP-86: Sign-in-with-Starknet Standard #86

Closed 0xYudhishthra closed 1 month ago

0xYudhishthra commented 5 months ago

Long messages can now be signed with this new standard using the Poseidon hash 🎉

The current SIWS standard introduces a lot of limitations when signing messages by enforcing a 31-char limit on the StarknetDomain and Message fields. This proposal suggests the removal of this limitation to allow for more flexibility in the use of the SIWS standard and increase adoption of the new standard for more dApps built on Starknet.

JorikSchellekens commented 5 months ago

Note: We are reworking the intro to this SNIP to be stand-alone instead of referencing the previous, closed pull request.

0xYudhishthra commented 4 months ago

Long messages can now be signed with this new standard using the Poseidon hash 🎉

The current SIWS standard introduces a lot of limitations when signing messages by enforcing a 31-char limit on the StarknetDomain and Message fields. This proposal suggests the removal of this limitation to allow for more flexibility in the use of the SIWS standard and increase adoption of the new standard for more dApps built on Starknet.

Made updates to this SNIP to be stand-alone and removed references to previous SNIPs, included detailed spec and implementation details for added context

dor-starkware commented 4 months ago

Hi @0xYudhishthra ,

Thank you for your submission of SNIP-86. To comply fully with SNIP-1 guidelines, please address the following:

Rationale: Include a section that describes the reasons for specific design choices and any alternatives that were considered.

Backwards Compatibility: Add a section that discusses any backward compatibility issues, even if there are none.

Security Considerations: While security aspects are discussed, please add a clearly labeled section titled "Security Considerations."

Once these changes are made, we can proceed further with the review process.

Eikix commented 3 months ago

Adding an update here @0xYudhishthra, I think I added comments too fast! I might have misunderstood how JSON schemas work. Apologies (can't resolve my comments)

0xYudhishthra commented 3 months ago

Adding an update here @0xYudhishthra, I think I added comments too fast! I might have misunderstood how JSON schemas work. Apologies (can't resolve my comments)

Hey @Eikix, no worries on that! Could you please let me know which comments you'd like resolved, so I know which ones to take a second look at? (just mention the comments in the numeric order, e.g. 1,2,3... I'll help resolve it)

Eikix commented 3 months ago

Adding an update here @0xYudhishthra, I think I added comments too fast! I might have misunderstood how JSON schemas work. Apologies (can't resolve my comments)

Hey @Eikix, no worries on that! Could you please let me know which comments you'd like resolved, so I know which ones to take a second look at? (just mention the comments in the numeric order, e.g. 1,2,3... I'll help resolve it)

Ok now that I'm a SNIP maintainer, I could resolve comments! I deleted the comments that I don't think have value.

0xYudhishthra commented 3 months ago

Hi @0xYudhishthra ,

Thank you for your submission of SNIP-86. To comply fully with SNIP-1 guidelines, please address the following:

Rationale: Include a section that describes the reasons for specific design choices and any alternatives that were considered.

Backwards Compatibility: Add a section that discusses any backward compatibility issues, even if there are none.

Security Considerations: While security aspects are discussed, please add a clearly labeled section titled "Security Considerations."

Once these changes are made, we can proceed further with the review process.

Hey @dor-starkware, I've included these sections...hope it's in order!

github-actions[bot] commented 1 month ago

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale. This PR will be closed and locked in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions!