ERC1388- Managing Trusted Smart Contract Identifiers
bitcoinwarrior1 opened this issue · comments
Draft ERC - Managing lists for trusted smart contract identifiers
Introduction
In smart contracts, we will need methods to handle cryptographic attestations to a users identifier or abilities. Let's say we have a real estate agent, KiwiRealtors, that provides an "expression of interest" function though a smart contract and requires the users to provide an attestation that they are a resident of New Zealand or Australia, as a legal requirement. This has actually happened in the New Zealand property market and it is the perfect example of a need to handle such attestations.
However, it is not practical for a smart contract to explicitly trust an attestation issuer. There are multiple issuers who can provide an attestation to a person's residency - a local Justice of the Peace, the land title office, local police, passport authority etc. We envision a model where the effort to manage the list of qualified issuers is practically outsourced to a list.
Anyone can publish a list of issuers. Only the most trusted and carefully maintained lists gets popular use.
Purpose
This ERC provides a smart contract interface for anyone to manage a list of attestation issuers. A smart contract would explicitly trust a list, and therefore all attestations issued by the issuers on the list.
Draft implementation
/* The purpose of this contract is to manage the list of attestation
* issuer contracts and their capacity to fulfil requirements
*/
contract ManagedListERC
{
/* a manager is the steward of a list. Only he/she/it can change the
* list by removing/adding attestation issuers to the list.
* An issuer in the list is represented by their contract
* addresses, not by the attestation signing keys managed by such a
* contract.
*/
struct List
{
string name;
string description; // short description of what the list entails
string capacity; // serves as a filter for the attestation signing keys
/* if a smart contract specifies a list, only attestation issued
* by issuers on that list is accepted. Furthermore, if that
* list has a non-empty capacity, only attestations signed by a
* signing key with that capacity is accepted. */
address[] issuerContracts; // all these addresses are contracts, no signing capacity
uint expiry;
}
// find which list the sender is managing, then add an issuer to it
function addIssuer(address issuerContractAddress) public;
//return false if the list identified by the sender doesn't have this issuer in the list
function removeIssuer(address issuerContractAddress, List listToRemoveIssuerFrom) public returns(bool);
/* called by services, e.g. Kiwi Properties or James Squire */
/* loop through all issuer's contract and execute validateKey() on
* every one of them in the hope of getting a hit, return the
* contract address of the first hit. Note that there is an attack
* method for one issuer to claim to own the key of another which
* is mitigated by later design. */
//loop through the issuers array, calling validate on the signingKeyOfAttestation
function getIssuerCorrespondingToAttestationKey(bytes32 list_id, address signingKeyOfAttestation) public returns (address);
/* for simplicity we use sender's address as the list ID,
* accepting these consequences: a) if one user wish to maintain
* several lists with different capacity, he or she must use a
* different sender address for each. b) if the user replaced the
* sender's key, either because he or she suspects the key is
* compromised or that it is lost and reset through special means,
* then the list is still identified by the first sender's
* address.
*/
function createList(List list) public;
/* replace list manager's key with the new key */
function replaceListIndex(List list, address manager) public returns(bool);
}
Click here to see an example implementation of this ERC
Related ERC's
@James-Sangalli this EIP doesn't have a copyright statement. Can you please add one? EIP-1 suggests CC0 - see the eip-x.md template.
There has been no activity on this issue for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.
This issue was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.