You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am one of the developers building OpenChat.
Within OpenChat we support the sending of any ICRC1 tokens, but we have been asked a few times to also support DIP20 tokens.
We make use of subaccounts in a few cases to isolate user funds held by a single canister, so we cant use DIP20 due to its lack of support for subaccounts.
However, a year ago, @roman-kashitsyn (one of the Dfinity devs) came up with a solution (see here) that would allow us to easily add support for ICRC1 to the DIP20 ledger.
His proposed solution simply involves converting each {owner, subaccount} pair into a derived principal.
The core of the ledger remains exactly the same.
I'm keen to implement the solution proposed by Roman so I'm creating this issue to start the discussion and to see if others also think this is a good plan.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is a good endeavor to add ICRC-1 support for Dip20 tokens. Otherwise, all DIP20 tokens are in their own world right now. This is a good move for ICP eco-system.
Hey!
I am one of the developers building OpenChat.
Within OpenChat we support the sending of any ICRC1 tokens, but we have been asked a few times to also support DIP20 tokens.
We make use of subaccounts in a few cases to isolate user funds held by a single canister, so we cant use DIP20 due to its lack of support for subaccounts.
However, a year ago, @roman-kashitsyn (one of the Dfinity devs) came up with a solution (see here) that would allow us to easily add support for ICRC1 to the DIP20 ledger.
His proposed solution simply involves converting each
{owner, subaccount}
pair into a derived principal.The core of the ledger remains exactly the same.
I'm keen to implement the solution proposed by Roman so I'm creating this issue to start the discussion and to see if others also think this is a good plan.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: