Add documentation file for the NFToa protocol ID at doc/standards/nftoa.md
The latest update of this documentation triggered the need to revise the functions in D18785
Details
Details
- Reviewers
Fabien bytesofman - Group Reviewers
Restricted Owners Package (Owns No Changed Paths) Restricted Project - Commits
- rABC957d4368fff8: [Cashtab] About NFToa Protocol ID
Checked that the new nftoa.md file renders correctly in Markdown. No code changes are involved.
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rABC Bitcoin ABC
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
there seems to be a rebase issue here bc docs/standards/nftoa.md does not yet exist in the monorepo, but this diff shows changes to it. The diff needs to be based on a single commit, which must be based off the latest master.
Comment Actions
You need to squash your changes before you update the diff so it includes all the changes and shows as a new file, which it is in the context of this diff
| doc/standards/nftoa.md | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | |
| 66 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | This is also a push data, with length 8 |
| 84 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | The trailing 00 is not part of the push here, it's the lenght of the nonce push (0). Also as per spec it is not required, so why include it ? It only makes the transaction more expensive. |
| 90 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | if it is ignored it should not be there at all |
| 97 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | it can't be random if it's verifiable |
| 104 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | It's not a cashtab limitation but an eCash one |
| 105 ↗ | (On Diff #56146) | I'm not sure how much hex value of a utf-8 string is human readable but this also contradicts with the above spec that says it's either a utf-8 string or binary data. |
Comment Actions
This documentation update mandates function alignment in D18785 to ensure protocol consistency.
| doc/standards/nftoa.md | ||
|---|---|---|
| 64 ↗ | (On Diff #56156) | The table alignment is now broken |
| 85 ↗ | (On Diff #56156) | same here |
| 94 ↗ | (On Diff #56156) | Consider shorted the description or move it above the table because it overflows quite a lot |
| 102 ↗ | (On Diff #56156) | I still don't understand the purpose of the nonce here, and how it can make anything more secure. That's your protocol so your call, we can also discuss this offline if you want to. |
| 103 ↗ | (On Diff #56156) | newline |
Comment Actions
still not clear why the nonce is needed...if you just need uniqueness, every txid is unique. If it's optional, seems like it isn't really necessary.
In general, OP_RETURN space is limited. So if you are building an app, the goal is to encode everything as tight as possible, and omit everything that isn't performing some useful function.
there's nothing standard about OP_RETURN specs having or needing a nonce. I do not want devs to think it's a normal thing or some kind of ecash req. I don't think I ever used the word nonce in my life before seeing it in the paybutton spec, which happens to be a ref for this spec. But there's no need to do things the same way.
But, if you insist, nonce it up.