You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
FWIW my Tezos SIWX implementation is inspired from the one at Ceramic, though is less restrictive. Ceramic's implementation only allows for Tezos Ed25519 keys - whereas ours allows for all types of Tezos keys as long as they can be validated using Taquito since a lot of popular Tezos wallets don't create Ed25519 keys by default.
This part will definitely fail during cross-testing.
Ceramic's implementation only allows for Tezos Ed25519 keys - whereas ours allows for all types of Tezos keys as long as they can be validated using Taquito since a lot of popular Tezos wallets don't create Ed25519 keys by default.
My assumption (perhaps overhasty) was that since tz1, tz2 and tz3 keys are separate entries/regexs/etc in did:pkh, they'd be separate classes or subclasses of account eligible for a CAIP-122 flow/interaction. As such, they should be tested (and cross-tested) separately anyways-- i.e., an implementation might still be considered valid using a subset of the available tezos keytypes, particularly since not all wallets expose all 3 and they could be deprecated on different timelines over the years...
But my assumption and Qibing's profile don't quite match so if someone cares they should probably argue their case, suggest changes, etc :D
CASA Editorial 29 June
PRs to refine/move to close
Ongoing projects/topics
Backlog
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: