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

Specify Signing Keys in CLI Wallet #2048

Closed
1 of 11 tasks
MichelSantos opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed
1 of 11 tasks

Specify Signing Keys in CLI Wallet #2048

MichelSantos opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@MichelSantos
Copy link
Contributor

User Story
Users of BSIP 40, which is available in BitShares 4.0.0, requires client software that can add a signature to a transaction.

The CLI Wallet can sign transactions with the keys in the wallet but only with keys that are directly required by operations in a transaction. For example, the transfer of funds from Alice's account requires Alice's signature.

BSIP 40 allows allows transactions to be signed by additional accounts, keys, and authorities that have been authorized by the required party. For example, Alice could authorize Bob to transfer funds from her account. Therefore, Bob should be able to sign such a transaction by signing with his account's active key.

The CLI Wallet does not currently allow a user to insist on signing a transaction that does not obviously require it. There should be a way for CLI Wallet users to insist on signing a transaction with any key in their wallet.

Impacts
Describe which portion(s) of BitShares Core may be impacted by your request. Please tick at least one box.

  • API (the application programming interface)
  • Build (the build process or something prior to compiled code)
  • CLI (the command line wallet)
  • Deployment (the deployment process after building such as Docker, Travis, etc.)
  • DEX (the Decentralized EXchange, market engine, etc.)
  • P2P (the peer-to-peer network for transaction/block propagation)
  • Performance (system or user efficiency, etc.)
  • Protocol (the blockchain logic, consensus, validation, etc.)
  • Security (the security of system or user data, etc.)
  • UX (the User Experience)
  • Other (please add below)
@abitmore
Copy link
Member

Actually we have another option: extend/fix the get_potential_signatures and get_required_signatures APIs to return keys related to custom active authorities. Nevertheless, the ability to explicitly specify keys when signing is probably useful as well.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

It's best if we can fix this in 4.0.0. If we can't, we should fix it asap.

@abitmore abitmore added the 4c High Priority Priority indicating significant impact to system/user -OR- workaround is prohibitivly expensive label Nov 11, 2019
@pmconrad
Copy link
Contributor

Merged quick fix in #2049.
Leaving this issue open for proper adaption of get_(potential|required)_signatures.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

Created #2202 for fixing APIs. Closing this issue.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants