Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add monero namespace #65

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jun 5, 2023
Merged

Add monero namespace #65

merged 6 commits into from
Jun 5, 2023

Conversation

silverpill
Copy link
Contributor

#41

@silverpill silverpill mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2023
monero/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
monero/caip2.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
monero/caip2.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
monero/caip2.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
monero/caip2.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

This is great, @silverpill , glad to see this moving forward! Sorry for the delay, I am on family leave and have been off github. As soon as any other editor approves, we'll merge this.

@silverpill
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bumblefudge I've reviewed your edits; no objections.

One thing I'm still uncertain about is the length of chain ID. Since there's only a small number of Monero chains, the genesis block hash can be truncated to a fewer characters, for example:

# Monero mainnet (32 chars, current proposal)
monero:418015bb9ae982a1975da7d79277c270

# Monero mainnet (6 chars, more ergonomic?)
monero:418015

But I'm leaning towards keeping 32 chars.

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

I think the general trend has been towards shorter, but it really comes down to the ergonomics and tradeoffs of whom you think will be using these URIs outside the native/community tooling for cross-chain purposes. If you think those URIs are more useful shortened, I don't think the loss of entropy is a significant collision risk here-- after all, they're already truncated, so it saves space for longer segments after the :! Let me know either way, because it's ready to merge in either form; that said, if you'd rather poll the dev community or ping a few people working on cross-chain apps, take your time and bump this thread when you've decided!

@silverpill
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think it can be merged as is. I posted about it in several channels, but so far no one expressed interest in using this standard.
If needed, we can amend the spec later (can we?).

@bumblefudge bumblefudge merged commit 8505306 into ChainAgnostic:main Jun 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants