Rahul/ifl 2146 replace pgk on build with proof authorizing key #4650
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
patnir
force-pushed
the
rahul/ifl-2146-replace-pgk-on-build-with-proof-authorizing-key
branch
from
ae55a32
to
952ee5a
Compare
hughy
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2024
patnir
deleted the
rahul/ifl-2146-replace-pgk-on-build-with-proof-authorizing-key
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Now we can build an unsigned transaction using the authorizing key as input instead of the proof generation key.
This is in line with our need to store the authorizing key on a view only account so that these accounts can generate the proofs needed for building an unsigned transaction
Testing Plan
Documentation
Does this change require any updates to the Iron Fish Docs (ex. the RPC API
Reference)? If yes, link a
related documentation pull request for the website.
Breaking Change
Is this a breaking change? If yes, add notes below on why this is breaking and
what additional work is required, if any.