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
This structure is confusing, since it seems that "signer_info" is metadata describing the signature/who it comes from. Confusingly, the "signer info" is not packaged with the signature, and is instead packaged with the fees in a struct called "auth_info". This leads to a very unintuitive structure.
We propose the struct instead be
{
Body
Fee
AuthInfo {
SignerInfo
Signatures
}
}
Auth Info should be Authn depending on the decision in #7615
(Written jointly with @sunnya97 )
For Admin Use
Not duplicate issue
Appropriate labels applied
Appropriate contributors tagged
Contributor assigned/self-assigned
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Have you read through ADR 020 and all the surrounding discussions? Tx is organized the way it is to 1) expose the minimum malleability surface and 2) make client signing implementations as simple as possible. This is not just a code hygiene issue. I don't really feel that it will be productive for us to discuss aesthetics without considering all the other somewhat complex and subtle issues. And considering the quite lengthy discussions we already had, I'm pretty resistant to changing it again without a strong signing workflow or security reason.
amaury1093
added
T: ADR
An issue or PR relating to an architectural decision record
and removed
Type: Code Hygiene
General cleanup and restructuring of code to provide clarity, flexibility, and modularity.
labels
Oct 26, 2020
I am looking at the structure of a tx, as described in this file
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/4a1b2fba43b1052ca162b3a1e0b6db6db9c26656/proto/cosmos/tx/v1beta1/tx.proto
This structure is confusing, since it seems that "signer_info" is metadata describing the signature/who it comes from. Confusingly, the "signer info" is not packaged with the signature, and is instead packaged with the fees in a struct called "auth_info". This leads to a very unintuitive structure.
We propose the struct instead be
Auth Info should be Authn depending on the decision in #7615
(Written jointly with @sunnya97 )
For Admin Use
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: