testing pobtoken create_tx with ATToken decks

[buhtignew]

FYI, feeling that the PoBtoken and ATToken are very similar I've tested pobtoken create_tx command with the ATToken decks.

• The pobtoken create_tx ATTokenNotPoB 1.1234 command has raised Error: No valid address string or non-existing label in the extended configuration file. error, as well as pobtoken create_tx ATTokenNewSpec 1.1234.

• For the pobtoken create_tx f7b1af6d565898851878cb13c88bb52996a0a5380c4ea8803c248a69c7d00d82 1.1234 I've got Error: End deadline for burn or gateway transactions of this token is is block 250000. and for pobtoken create_tx dbefb8c9fcb4ed2bb2722abb177188b9e7d8cde55e4163fff9c5e5ca374706e1 1.1234 I've got Error: End deadline for burn or gateway transactions of this token is is block 150000..

• The pobtoken create_tx 7a2ae406ddf44ddb17532d4888fdc14573f52749445e9e014075c9f83cbe556f 1.1234 command has produced a regular transaction 97fd0b0ecbfc49dc3eae05c1eec92637dec6be7f7cd2edc1d27d6f977b9d36ef, but I was not able to claim tokens using the pobtoken claim 7a2ae406ddf44ddb17532d4888fdc14573f52749445e9e014075c9f83cbe556f 97fd0b0ecbfc49dc3eae05c1eec92637dec6be7f7cd2edc1d27d6f977b9d36ef command (I've produced c59d979cd8ebc461d1fc3d9cf19d7814854983aa73bfc4f36fdf147185945e6c, 6030070f350cc098fe9fbfe30268fc7db452db0d13c1c393fbebb29ed0137b88 and bc83c403405eb49428f17a496deb8d1b5935927d2322507581ed3d871f8ed41a but my token balances -t 7a2ae406ddf44ddb17532d4888fdc14573f52749445e9e014075c9f83cbe556f output has remained always {'n3MtPoPaAREU5GEhAErBPuju83bVog2opz': 0}.

• Trying attoken claim 7a2ae406ddf44ddb17532d4888fdc14573f52749445e9e014075c9f83cbe556f 97fd0b0ecbfc49dc3eae05c1eec92637dec6be7f7cd2edc1d27d6f977b9d36ef command hasn't changed the situation. I've produced transaction b4db461dc2420ea9411709e0041e557feacc1a7975823372851a0011f8b6bae8, but the token balances -t 7a2ae406ddf44ddb17532d4888fdc14573f52749445e9e014075c9f83cbe556f output was still {'n3MtPoPaAREU5GEhAErBPuju83bVog2opz': 0}.

[d5000]

• ATTokenNewSpec is not longer a valid token, it was an old testing token so it will not work correctly. I've seen that pacli deck list -a does show it, so at least its "magic bytes" identifying it at the start are there but the structure seems incorrect.
• Both f7b1af6d565898851878cb13c88bb52996a0a5380c4ea8803c248a69c7d00d82 and dbefb8c9fcb4ed2bb2722abb177188b9e7d8cde55e4163fff9c5e5ca374706e1 show the correct deadlines.
• With attoken create_tx 7a2ae406ddf44ddb17532d4888fdc14573f52749445e9e014075c9f83cbe556f 1.1234 I was able to create the gateway tx, claim the tokens and get them credited.

As written in issue #150 , I have modified the structure to disallow pobtoken create_tx. This is redundant with pobtoken burn_coins. The structure of the command was identic though.

So as in issue #150 I think probably the bug has been fixed already.

Please close if no more problems appear here.

[buhtignew]

I've just been able to create a transaction 1a7fb3b69cde609467e5067e8573a189d6277aa9d71e0ddf8784d44fb480c931 for the PoB deck using ATToken command attoken create_tx ATTokenNewSpec2 1.

After I've created that transaction it was visible both in transaction list ATTokenNewSpec2 -b -u | grep 1a7fb3b69cde609467e5067e8573a189d6277aa9d71e0ddf8784d44fb480c931 and transaction list ATTokenNewSpec2 -g -u | grep 1a7fb3b69cde609467e5067e8573a189d6277aa9d71e0ddf8784d44fb480c931 outputs.

Then I've claimed it using attoken claim ATTokenNewSpec2 1a7fb3b69cde609467e5067e8573a189d6277aa9d71e0ddf8784d44fb480c931 command (transaction 206a4a82f074c404c519b005100b41a527c30233722277c936006b173e686734) and now I can see it in the token transfers ATTokenNewSpec2 | grep 206a4a82f074c404c519b005100b41a527c30233722277c936006b173e686734 output.

At this point it seems like there is no need to have pobtoken burn_coins and pobtoken claim commands since the analogous attoken commands can do all the job (I haven't checked yet if we have the same situation with the spawn command as well).

I'm not sure whether we can consider merging both categories into one or even both into the token category or if it makes more sense on the opposite to split them more apart by adding checks that do not let using attoken commands in place of their pobtoken cousins.

[d5000]

At this point it seems like there is no need to have pobtoken burn_coins and pobtoken claim commands since the analogous attoken commands can do all the job (I haven't checked yet if we have the same situation with the spawn command as well).

burn_coins is obviously not available for attoken. The claim command is indeed identic in both cases, but the spawn command is different.

For me it's an usability improvement if you can fastly create a PoB token with pobtoken spawn instead of something like attoken spawn -b, and to burn_coins is more intuitive than something like create_tx -b. Also in the case of a merge the difference between AT and PoB tokens is a bit lost.

So I'm tending to leave everything as it is.

[buhtignew]

Agreed.