CIP-0104? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key #588

Scitz0 · 2023-09-03T09:50:11Z

A CIP-30 extension that allows for a DApp (if allowed) to fetch the connected account public key. Utilizes yet to-be-merged CIP-30 namespace PR #577.

(rendered proposal in branch)

A [CIP-30 extension](https://cips.cardano.org/cips/cip30/#cardanowalletnameenableextensionsextensionpromiseapi) that allows for a DApp (if allowed) to fetch the connected account public key. Utilizes yet to-be-merged CIP-30 namespace PR cardano-foundation#577.

rphair · 2023-09-03T18:38:54Z

@Scitz0 looks proper so far but I'm waiting on review until #587 (review) is addressed.

Ryun1

Hey @Scitz0!

Thanks for this proposal, I am a fan of this 🤓

In general I think the motivation and rationale could be matured a bit more 🙏

See comments!

CIP-XXXX/README.md

Ryun1 · 2023-09-10T14:09:47Z

CIP-XXXX/README.md

+Returns hex-encoded string representing cbor of extended account public key. Throws APIError if needed as defined by CIP30.
+
+## Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals?
+Raw cbor is returned instead of bech32 encoding to follow specification of other CIP30 endpoints. Wallets implementing this CIP should, but not enforced, request additional access from the user to access this endpoint as it allows for complete read access to account history and derivation paths. 


this CIP should, but not enforced

Should they or not? IMO sharing public keys should not require permission.

It's a bit subtle, but connecting a wallet tells the dApp about all the currently used utxos and addresses of a wallet. Sharing the account public keys tells the dApp about any currently used utxos and addresses along with PAST/FUTURE addresses. It's basically asking for an updatable read-only copy of the user's wallet instead of just the current snapshot of a user's wallet.

I think wallets SHOULD request additional access for the reason Andrew mentioned. But I wasn't sure if CIP should mention it as enforced or just as a recommendation. This is why I expressed myself as I did. In addition to past/future addresses, it will also allow you to derive not just payment and stake keys but also upcoming DRep pub keys (CIP-95).

Ryun1 · 2023-09-10T14:13:33Z

CIP-XXXX/README.md

+## Motivation: why is this CIP necessary?
+Normally it's up to the wallet to handle the logic for utxo selection, derived addresses etc through the established CIP-30 api. Sometimes however, dApp needs greater control due to subpar utxo selection or other specific needs that can only be handled by chain lookup from derived address(es). This moves the control and complexity from wallet to dApp for those dApps that prefer this setup. A dApp has better control and can make a more uniform user experience. By exporting only the account public key, this gives read-only access to the dApp.
+
+## Specification


Is there a need to support wallet's proving ownership of the shared account key?

Perhaps CIP-30's signed data just be used (if the dApp derives payment/stake keys)?

This would add extra friction. All we really need here is a popup asking for permission from the user.

I think its enough to handle it through the normal enable() call, if this extension is requested, just show enable popup to either allow or disallow.

Ah no, what I meant was adding a separate endpoint where the wallet signs with this key to prove ownership.
But I dont think this is needed as existing signData could be used (albeit with extra steps for the verifier).

Ryun1 · 2023-09-10T14:18:50Z

CIP-XXXX/README.md

+Errors: APIError
+
+Returns hex-encoded string representing cbor of extended account public key. Throws APIError if needed as defined by CIP30.
+


How should this proposal be versioned? see specification from CIP-0001.

🤔 ... any recommendation for wording on this?
I'm open to any suggestion really.

something like

"This CIP is not to be versioned using a traditional scheme, rather if any large technical changes are required then a new proposal must replace this one. Small changes can be made if they are completely backwards compatible with implementations, but this should be avoided."

Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>

rphair · 2023-09-19T20:08:58Z

@Scitz0 @AndrewWestberg we've had to change the delimiter character because the colon was causing YAML errors due to the mapping syntax. If you see any problems with this please post here and/or in #594.

Scitz0 · 2023-09-19T20:41:32Z

@Scitz0 @AndrewWestberg we've had to change the delimiter character because the colon was causing YAML errors due to the mapping syntax. If you see any problems with this please post here and/or in #594.

I saw that | character also caused some issues 😄 ... I'll just hold off on the final decision on this. 👍

rphair · 2023-09-19T22:30:26Z

thanks @Scitz0 - we're trying to settle the issue now, as summarised in #594 (comment)

rphair · 2023-10-04T03:11:14Z

@Scitz0 the 2 pending wallet API proposals were confirmed as candidates at the CIP meeting today... congratulations & please rename your CIP content folder to CIP-0104 🤩

Scitz0 · 2023-10-04T06:58:27Z

Should we wait on merge until #601 is resolved?
Or we can deal with that after?

There are backslashes here, and this is how it was done in CIP30, so I just mimicked that.

rphair · 2023-10-04T15:26:17Z

sure @Scitz0 I think it's reasonable to first get consensus about how to handle the backslash-escaping of the left brackets in general. Now that we have that PR on CIP-0030 I think we'll get attention from more devs including those who have worked with the affected parsers directly.

rphair · 2024-04-26T18:37:40Z

@Scitz0 I've put this on next CIP meeting agenda (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/87) in the hope of moving this forward; I'll follow the lead of the more wallet-oriented CIP editor(s) & approve this as soon as it passes their technical review.

CIP-0104/README.md

rphair

Came up all hands in favour at yesterday's CIP Editors meeting. Once #588 (comment) is added I expect @Ryun1 will approve it & it would be nice for @Crypto2099 also to approve since he was happy about it at the meeting. So @Scitz0 we are looking at merging this very soon & it's still marked Last Check for the next meeting if not.

rphair added the Category: Wallets Proposals belonging to the 'Wallets' category. label Sep 3, 2023

Ryun1 reviewed Sep 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

rphair and others added 2 commits September 10, 2023 12:44

Update CIP-XXXX/README.md

5ea1f65

Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>

standard form for copyright footer

81a0f53

Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>

Scitz0 changed the title ~~CIP-???? | CIP-30 ext: Account public key~~ CIP-???? | Web-Wallet Bridge: Account public key Sep 10, 2023

Scitz0 and others added 2 commits September 10, 2023 23:17

Update according to cardano-foundation#590

7b80406

Update CIP-XXXX/README.md

d77d858

Co-authored-by: Ryan Williams <[email protected]>

rphair changed the title ~~CIP-???? | Web-Wallet Bridge: Account public key~~ CIP-???? | Web-Wallet Bridge | Account public key Sep 19, 2023

change delimiter character as per cardano-foundation#594

47d548c

rphair changed the title ~~CIP-???? | Web-Wallet Bridge | Account public key~~ CIP-???? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key Sep 21, 2023

rphair added 2 commits September 20, 2023 20:14

title delimiter changed to - as per cardano-foundation#594 update

ddce93b

assign CIP number 104

de648c8

rphair changed the title ~~CIP-???? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key~~ CIP-0104? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key Oct 4, 2023

rphair mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2023

Update top-level README: meeting #74 promotion #600

Merged

Updates according to assigned CIP number

f7fa913

updates according cardano-foundation#601

3982706

Ryun1 mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2023

CIP-0090? | Extendable dApp-Wallet Web Bridge #462

Open

1 task

Ryun1 reviewed Apr 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

CIP-0104/README.md Show resolved Hide resolved

rphair added the State: Last Check Review favourable with disputes resolved; staged for merging. label Apr 30, 2024

rphair approved these changes May 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

rphair requested a review from Crypto2099 May 1, 2024 10:54

Move access line to spec section

df4234e

Ryun1 approved these changes May 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

rphair merged commit 98437b9 into cardano-foundation:master May 14, 2024

rphair mentioned this pull request May 19, 2024

Update top-level README: post meeting 88 #820

Merged

rphair removed the State: Last Check Review favourable with disputes resolved; staged for merging. label Sep 3, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

CIP-0104? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key #588

CIP-0104? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key #588

Scitz0 commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited by Ryun1

Loading

rphair commented Sep 3, 2023

Ryun1 left a comment •

edited

Loading

Ryun1 Sep 10, 2023

AndrewWestberg Sep 10, 2023

Scitz0 Sep 10, 2023

Ryun1 Sep 10, 2023

AndrewWestberg Sep 10, 2023

Scitz0 Sep 10, 2023

Ryun1 May 1, 2024

Ryun1 Sep 10, 2023

Scitz0 Sep 10, 2023

Ryun1 May 1, 2024

rphair commented Sep 19, 2023

Scitz0 commented Sep 19, 2023

rphair commented Sep 19, 2023

rphair commented Oct 4, 2023

Scitz0 commented Oct 4, 2023

rphair commented Oct 4, 2023

rphair commented Apr 26, 2024

rphair left a comment

		Errors: APIError

		Returns hex-encoded string representing cbor of extended account public key. Throws APIError if needed as defined by CIP30.

CIP-0104? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key #588

CIP-0104? | Web-Wallet Bridge - Account public key #588

Conversation

Scitz0 commented Sep 3, 2023 • edited by Ryun1 Loading

rphair commented Sep 3, 2023

Ryun1 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rphair commented Sep 19, 2023

Scitz0 commented Sep 19, 2023

rphair commented Sep 19, 2023

rphair commented Oct 4, 2023

Scitz0 commented Oct 4, 2023

rphair commented Oct 4, 2023

rphair commented Apr 26, 2024

rphair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Scitz0 commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited by Ryun1

Loading

Ryun1 left a comment •

edited

Loading