Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Michael de Hoog pfp
Michael de Hoog
@mdehoog
Been working on a prototype and spec for @vitalik.eth's minimal keystore rollup hackmd.io/@mdehoog/mksr Please read and comment if you have thoughts
3 replies
12 recasts
69 reactions

Kames pfp
Kames
@kames
Is the expectation that wallets inheriting this model would no longer use an internal `owner` list to manage access? The `key` is always used as a reference for verification of what account is authorized to manage the smart account? And a proof (inclusion/exclusion) must always be generated to submit a transaction?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Michael de Hoog pfp
Michael de Hoog
@mdehoog
Correct, the expectation is that the "owner list" is now stored in the data encoded in the MKSR state. Yes, the idea is to generate an exclusion/inclusion proof for all SCW transactions. You could imagine some SCW implementations caching some proof internally for a short amount of time (like a "session") to save gas.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction