[AIP] Lite Account (Account v2)#467
Conversation
aips/aip-lite-account.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Risks and Drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| Since this AIP proposes a compatible solution, if the ecosystem still rely on account.move heavily and do not adopt the features of the lite account, the benefits would be greatly deprecated. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about:
- Performance penalties of this approach?
- Addressing who pays the gas costs?
- How will the full migration impact keyless accounts? What about passkey accounts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please refer to the updated version.
- discussed.
- No AA.
- keyless/passkey are orthogonal.
aips/aip-lite-account.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Since this AIP proposes a compatible solution, if the ecosystem still rely on account.move heavily and do not adopt the features of the lite account, the benefits would be greatly deprecated. | ||
|
|
||
| The migration plan would be two steps: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why migrate? Why not let old accounts be & introduce a new type of account?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think migration is better, we would have less things to support?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why migrate? Why not let old accounts be & introduce a new type of account?
Many users are farming the airdrop, they would like to keep their old account rather than creating a new account, but then they can't enjoy the benefits of account_v2. Maybe migration is a good choice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't want to mess up with 2 always... We will support both but the new account will always have new features. We don't guarantee this for old account.
aips/aip-lite-account.md
Outdated
| ## High-level Overview | ||
|
|
||
| Lite Account will have all account related resources into a single resource group, `0x1::lite_account::LiteAccountGroup`. The potential resources are: | ||
| - `Account`: It has one field, `sequence_number: u64`. If `squence_number == 0`, this resource does not exist. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo: squence_number == 0 --> sequence_number == 0. Also, what does it mean it does not exist? The resource does exist, this reads confusing to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed the statement. it means if it does not exist, the it is equal to sequence = 0.
aips/aip-lite-account.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Since this AIP proposes a compatible solution, if the ecosystem still rely on account.move heavily and do not adopt the features of the lite account, the benefits would be greatly deprecated. | ||
|
|
||
| The migration plan would be two steps: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think migration is better, we would have less things to support?
lightmark
force-pushed
the
account_v2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e4174f6 to
e7dfe2f
Compare
|
|
||
| Lite Account will have all account related resources into the same `PrimaryFungibleStore`(PFS) object group at the PFS object address. | ||
| The new struct will be in `account.move`, previously fields in account v1. The optionality of a resource is determined by its existence. To be compatible with account v1, some fields will be converted to the counterpart in lite account if the lite account is migrated from v1. | ||
| The potential resources are: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add another type called lock or resource_lock (programmable permissions that are either valid for a specified time or throughout the lifecycle of an intent)?
This would align well with the Aptos Intents Framework AIP. @lightmark
6 participants
Lite Account, aka Account V2 AIP.