CIP-1855: add derivation path standard for forging tokens #96
Conversation
disassembler
force-pushed
the
cip-forge-derivation-path
branch
from
89df13c to
c1fb283
Compare
CIP-1855/CIP-1855.md
Outdated
| To associate policy keys to a wallet, we reserve however `purpose=1855'` to reserve for policy keys for forging tokens. The coin type remains `coin_type=1815'` to identify Ada as registered in [SLIP-0044]. We use a hardened index for each policy key as derivation is not needed. | ||
|
|
||
| We can summarize the various paths and their respective domain in the following table: | ||
|
|
||
| | `purpose` | `coin_type` | `policy_ix` | | ||
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | `1855'` | `1815'` | `[2^31 .. 2^32-1]'` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose this is where we start the bike shedding... 😁
Are there any downsides to instead using a new role index under m / 1852´ / 1815´ / account´ (i.e. amendment to CIP-1852 scheme)?
This might be easier for wallets to implement. The token policy keys would belong to a specific account of a wallet.
Also, is there a reason to choose a new purpose when this could be a new coin_type under Cardano 1852´? We could use coin_type 2021´ in recognition of the very contemporary surge in popularity of NFTs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rvl I would avoid changing the coin type because that requires a change to a SLIP to avoid clashing with other cryptocurrencies
RE: using a new role derivation instead
Is creating tokens something that we consider should be namespaced per-account or something specific to the CIP-1852 standard? Not sure if that's necessarily the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes you are right - the token policy keys aren't necessarily directly related to a wallet account.
| - ERC20 Converter IOHK is developing needs to keep track of policy keys. Rather than having randomly generated policy keys, a policy key can be associated with a mnemonic which is easier to backup. | ||
| - A 3rd party may want to have multiple tokens tied to same mnemonic, so we allow an index to specify the token. | ||
|
|
||
| - We use a different purpose for mainly two reasons: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would help to also state the reason(s) why those particular derivation indices were chosen, as opposed to other possible derivation indices. And why there are 3 levels of derivation when 2 should work equally well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1855 is just the next number in numerical order.
How do you imagine having only 2 derivation levels? By removing the coin type? I guess it could be removed, but no real advantage either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seemed a bit redundant to have a second branch for coin type that is always 1815´. Especially because these token policies will be used to mint new coin types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I definitely see your point. For #56 we ended up keeping it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rvl The coin type is really here to prevent clashes across different crypto-currency projects (if someone else uses 1855 for something else for example). While this does not really matter for desktop wallets of our ecosystem like Daedalus who only care about a single crypto, Hardware wallets or generic wallets like Exodus do manipulate multiple currencies and multiple CIP/BIP/TIP/LIP (you name it) proposals.
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| m / purpose' / coin_type' / account_ix' / role / index | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually no 😶, the path considered is:
m / purpose' / coin_type' / policy_ix'
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| To associate policy keys to a wallet, we reserve however `purpose=1855'` to reserve for policy keys for forging tokens. The coin type remains `coin_type=1815'` to identify Ada as registered in [SLIP-0044]. We use a hardened index for each policy key as derivation is not needed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as derivation is not needed -> as soft derivation is not needed.
|
6/29 Editors meeting (25) discussed this PR - see notes. (conversation might be ahead of meeting notes at this point, this is a reference) => PR to be merged as CIP-1855 (Draft) shortly |
See https://github.com/input-output-hk/CIPs/blob/cip-forge-derivation-path/CIP-1855/CIP-1855.md