CIP-0069: alternative approach about cips HOT 10 CLOSED

I would love to see this implemented.

It is a prerequisite for smart wallets if we want them to have a smooth and intuitive UX .

I will also be implementing the Plutus-wallet connector soon and hopefully we can get this section of the market going, so having it in Plutus V3 will help everything accelerate .

Lots of innovation waiting to be unlocked.

from cips.

@zliu41 The outcome was to discuss with the Plutus Core team next CIP meeting to get the path forward that everyone is most comfortable implementing.

It sounds like the approach talked about in this issue is a more wholistic approach for typing validators.
We can also continue the discussion here in the comments. I can update the pr to reflect any changes decided on and finalized here.

from cips.

@rphair has this been discussed and what was the outcome?

from cips.

If we are going to incorporate making the datum optional, then I think we should also propose the corresponding change to the ledger rules to make it legal to spend outputs without datums.

from cips.

ping @lehins @WhatisRT (Ledger)
ping @SebastienGllmt @polinavino @fallen-icarus @L-as

from cips.

I don't find the unchecked dependence problem to be that bad, but I also don't desperately hate the combined thing. Perhaps we could give it a different name. ScriptInfo? IDK.

I was going to say that the unchecked approach would make it easier if we decided to allow the spending of script outputs without datums. But if we did that we would probably need to tie it to a new ledger language anyway, in which case we could change the ScriptInfo type just as easily.

from cips.

I made some updates to CIP 69 to mention the no datum case, but looks like the typing for ScriptInfo is better since you don't end up with an impossible type combination of ScriptArgs DatumAndRedeemer with a ScriptPurpose of Mint, Withdraw, etc.

from cips.

Added to today's CIP editors' meeting agenda (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/83) to discuss with #774 (#774 (comment)).

from cips.

propose the corresponding change to the ledger rules to make it legal to spend outputs without datums.

We can continue the discussion of that in CIP-87. The only reason it is related to CIP-69 is because the original ScriptArg proposal accidentally did what CIP-87 wants. If we go with the ScriptInfo approach then these two CIPs are completely orthogonal.

from cips.

I don't think they're orthogonal, since you have to decide here if you're going to have Datum or Maybe Datum in the spending purpose. It's weird to have Maybe Datum if we're not going to make that legal. So they are coupled!

from cips.