Update PR 115 (BSIP48) modify_max_supply#216
Update PR 115 (BSIP48) modify_max_supply#216jmjatlanta wants to merge 11 commits intobsips-issuer-asset-disable-modify-max-supplyfrom
Conversation
|
Also there is a discussion in bitshares/bitshares-core#1375 about adding a And maybe #187? |
bsip-0048.md
Outdated
| The `disable_modify_max_supply` is a new created flag in the `asset_issuer_permissions`. | ||
| The flag can be activated to forbid the modification of the `max_supply` (`asset_object.options`). | ||
| Once the flag is activated, it can't be deactivated. | ||
| The `disable_modify_max_supply` is a newly created flag in the `asset_issuer_permissions`. The flag can be activated to forbid the modification of the `max_supply` (`asset_object.options`). Once the flag is set to `true`, it can only be set to `false` if `current_supply` is zero. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please be more specific. "flags" are different from "permissions". "permission" implies the permission to change the flag value, whereas the "flag" implies a specific restriction.
Same for "disable_issue".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. From the programmer standpoint, disable_modify_max_supply is a flag, as it is a bit. But that muddies the waters, as others see it as a "permission". So I should re-word the paragraph to make disable_modify_max_supply to be a "permission", as it is part of the "asset_issuer_permissions".
If the above is correct, I will modify the paragraph below as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I mean is this: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/master/libraries/protocol/include/graphene/protocol/asset_ops.hpp#L56-L59
Assets have both flags and permissions. The flag tells what is currently allowed. The permission tells if the flag setting can be changed.
An inactive permission can only be enabled when supply == 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The lightbulb just went on. Thanks for flipping the switch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this considered resolved?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's partially resolved. In the last commit one sentence of two got updated.
|
Perhaps address #96 in this BSIP as well? |
|
I agree #96 is clear by now. However, I prefer to have it drafted as a distinct BSIP, rather than bundled with this one. @jmjatlanta are you willing to assist with drafting that BSIP, else I can find another resource to do so. |
bsip-0048.md
Outdated
| The `disable_modify_max_supply` is a new created flag in the `asset_issuer_permissions`. | ||
| The flag can be activated to forbid the modification of the `max_supply` (`asset_object.options`). | ||
| Once the flag is activated, it can't be deactivated. | ||
| `disable_modify_max_supply` will be added to `asset_issuer_permissions`. The permission can be activated to forbid the modification of the `max_supply` (`asset_object.options`). The related flag can only be set to `false` if `current_supply` is zero. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you have mixed up the meaning of permissions and flags.
This negative logic puts knots in my brain just from reading the BSIP. It will also be a PITA to implement. I think we should move these flags to positive logic. How many clients for creating assets are out there that might break?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How many clients for creating assets are out there that might break?
All clients.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think requiring clients to upgrade is better than being forever stuck with this twisted logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I clarified my permissions/flags statement. Please check. I have also switched to using positive logic. See 858b7ee
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's the way to go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's better to revert to negative logic.
I agree here. If that twists user's minds we can present it positively in UI
abitmore
left a comment
abitmore
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's better to revert to negative logic.
abitmore
changed the title
5 participants
This PR will adjust the language and add a few details to PR #115 to hopefully clarify the desires of the BSIP.