CIP 34: Network Registry #158
Conversation
NetworkRegistry/NetworkRegistry.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| When representing these networks in a human-readable string, the following format shall be used: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another option for the format could be bech32. The result would look something like this:
cipxx:1pugjyv6y3rn0jc
This is less human readable, but not that bad and has the checksum in it which is also nice (but the checksum is a little aggressive for the size of the payload. Checksum is 6 characters and so around half of the resulting string is just the checksum)
NetworkRegistry/NetworkRegistry.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
|
|
||
| We create a machine-readable registry of networks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where will this be stored? How will the data be governed? Will it be decentralized?
Or is this proposal just about the format of the data, leaving the actual form of the registry unspecified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will be stored here in this CIP. The governance is that anybody who submits a chain ID for any actual network they launched gets it. Similar to other blockchains that have similar IDs with similar governance. This system will not be uniquely associating chain IDs to projects. It's just a way for people to declare they are using an ID in an agreed-upon place to avoid people accidentally colliding.
This is similar to the way other chains deal with chain IDs and similar to other registries like the metadata label registry (CIP10) and SLIP44.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, that makes sense. It would be good to have something about t hat in the text!
What about short-lived networks, e.g. networks spun up for testing and then spun down shortly afterwards? Is the idea that they should use the same format to identify themselves, but not bother to register here? Will that affect how e.g. wallets interact with such networks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I guess short-lived networks could just pick a IDs to avoid any chance of collision and they can double-check this CIP to make sure they're not conflicting. We could reserve one of the network IDs for short-term networks and then have them pick a random network magic within it if that sounds like something useful
crptmppt
added
the
State: Last Check
rphair
removed
the
State: Last Check
Currently Cardano has two easily-usable networks: "mainnet" and "testnet". However, in the future, we expect more networks to exist and so we need some way to refer to these networks to be able to write better multi-network applications and systems.
This will help with standards like CIP30 for the "getNetworkId" endpoint and having a standardized registry for networks allows easy integration into the broader crypto ecosystem via standards like CAIP-2