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

Introduce Tinkernet multisig XCM configs to Kusama/Asset Hub Kusama #52

Closed

Conversation

arrudagates
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is a follow up of paritytech/polkadot#7165, which was approved and merged, but then reverted due the usage of the xcm-builder crate to define the XCM configs, which are not generic and universal enough to fit within the scope of that crate. As a solution, this PR defines the configs directly in the two runtimes, which should solve the xcm-builder issue.

For a proper overview of the PR and it's goals, here is the description of the original PR:

This PR introduces the XCM configs required for Saturn multisigs from Tinkernet to transact on Kusama/Rococo, this is done simply by providing implementations to convert the MultiLocation to both an AccountId and a Signed RuntimeOrigin.

For more information regarding why this approach of using a very specific derivation function and defining this function in the receiver chain's runtime is necessary for Saturn, and also general information about Saturn, you can check the discussion that was opened in the forum prior: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/saturn-xcm-multisig-integration-on-kusama-a-technical-discussion/2694

For a more high level overview of Saturn, check this article: https://invarch.medium.com/saturn-the-future-of-multi-party-ownership-ac7190f86a7b

Please feel free to discuss this in here or in the fellowship chat and thanks in advance for your time!

@gavofyork
Copy link
Contributor

This change should definitely be first mooted as a Fellowship RFC, then voted on by the Fellowship, and only when successful then can a PR be pushed.

@arrudagates
Copy link
Contributor Author

This change should definitely be first mooted as a Fellowship RFC, then voted on by the Fellowship, and only when successful then can a PR be pushed.

Good to know, I'll write up an RFC proposing this!

@arrudagates
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closed since polkadot-fellows/RFCs#34 was rewritten as a generic solution.

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.

2 participants