It is actually a priority that is being worked on at DFINITY, but it is not a small task: the ledger implementation first needs to support ICRC-2 (which is being worked on), and then we would need to change the ckBTC minter such that the BTC → ckBTC flow can take advantage of ICRC-2, and the NNS FE dapp would need an update to support this. So I agree it’s important, but it’s hard to give a precise estimate of when we could submit proposals to add this functionality.
Announcing "Token Standard" as topic of the first meeting of the Ledger & Tokenization Working Group
6 Likes
Thanks that’s nice to hear.
I appreciate the work DFINITY is putting in to this.
The slides, recording, and minutes of the WG Meeting of May 30 are available:
Slides
Recording
Minutes
Dear working group members!
Here is the proposed agenda and draft slides for the ledger and tokenization WG meeting on Tuesday, June 27, 2023. See the working group calendars (Google Calendar , calendar browser link ) for details and dial-in information.
Agenda
- ICRC-3: A standard for accessing the transaction log
Specifically, we want to
- continuing the discussions from the recent meeting
See you tomorrow!
The specification for the textual encoding of subaccounts, which is part of ICRC-1, is in status “Draft”. So it says in the document itself. What does it take to move to “Accepted” and is there a timeline for it?
The slides, recording, and minutes of the WG Meeting of June 13 are available:
Slides
Recording
Minutes
Hello Folks,
I’ve come across this ICP account 8c349a0dd0a86420a0fcb2f5d66dd5a93faeda4cae7ba60f0a56f1d17263e589 which seems to have a number of outgoing ‘0’ sum transactions - some of which pay a transfer fee and some which don’t. This confuses me somewhat and as such I’d like to clarify the fee situation for ICP and ICRC in regards ‘0’ value transactions.
- Is it possible/ should it be possible to make a 0 sum transaction in ICRC?
- If so should that transaction deduct a fee?
- Does ICRC differ from ICP ledger in this regard?
Many Thanks,
Nathan.
It is possible to make a 0 amount transaction in ICP and ICRC as long as the caller can pay the fee. The fee is required every time the state of the Ledger changes like in the case of adding a new block.
I can speculate on potential reasons on why 0 amount transactions should exist. The Ledger allows to store a piece of data in the memo field. A user could decide to pay the fee to record something on the Ledger.
2 Likes
I agree that 0 transactions with a fee paid could be useful in certain situations.
My understanding is that only transaction types will have a fee for the sender. Burn and Mint, although changing balances on the ledger, dont have a fee recorded against them?
Any idea why the ICP account above has 0 fee transactions… the pattern seems to suggest a bug which was then fixed?
Mint doesn’t have a fee because the Minting Account is special and making it pay fees doesn’t make sense given that it can mint tokens. The Minting Account must be something trustworthy that won’t break the Ledger such as a trusted DAO.
Burn is different because it can be initiated by any Account. The standard says that burn has no fee but also that a Ledger may require a minimum amount to burn. This minimum amount replaces the fee. In the ICP and ICRC Ledgers developed by DFINITY, this minimum amount is equivalent to the fee. You can see the ICP check here. If the minimum amount is not met then the caller receives the error BadBurn as specified in the standard.
2 Likes
That was a bug that got fixed in 2021. The reason why this kind of 0 amount transactions exist is for a legacy feature of the ICP Ledger called notify. When the notification for a block happens, the Ledger records a new block with amount 0 and the memo set to the previous block, e.g. block 15921 memo is set to 15920. Now that the bug is fixed, the notifier has to pay a standard fee.
1 Like
Is there an agreed-upon name for the textual encoding of an ICRC-1 account? The spec just calls it a textual representation. But what shall users call it when they speak about it. As in „give me your account ….“ What is ….? Is it account identifier, account string, account label, account address, etc?
Good question! Has the format for them (what ever the name is) been agreed… trying to work out if I missed it.
I’m using prinicpal.subaccount at the moment but I’m aware that full stops can cause issues for URL encoding
The textual encoding is finalized, you can read about it here.
1 Like
Dear working group members!
Here is the proposed agenda and draft slides for the ledger and tokenization WG meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 2023. See the working group calendars (Google Calendar , calendar browser link ) for details and dial-in information.
Agenda
- ICRC-3 Vote
- Next topic
Specifically, we want to
- summarize the ICRC-3 proposal and then vote it here
- pick the next topic of the working group. Candidates are ICRC-4 Batching, ICRC-5 Indexing, URL Namespacing for ICRC canisters and signed transactions.
See you later!
For completeness, here is a transcript of the WG Meeting of June 27, 2023:
Transcript
Recording not available
Please find the recording of the WG Meeting of July 11, 2023 below:
Recording
Chat
You can find all the recordings, chats, and slides of all meetings here:
All files of all meetings