Feedback on Fairminters

[droplister]

Looking forward to mints, did not have time to review the spec until now. Here is some feedback:

commision:
I don't think it makes sense to set a max commission, but UI/UX developers should alert people if commission is 100%.

asset issued if soft cap unmet:
Does the asset get issued if soft cap is unmet? This makes sense, but it may be good to mention this somewhere.

max start and end block:
One of the issues I see with dispensers is they never expire which over time encumbers the network with maintaining their functionality indefinitely, as-is. We could lessen this impact for fairminters with a max start and end block, relative to the current block. (5-10 years?)

max soft and hard cap check:
Could make sense to check against config.MAX_INT like how issuance does.

asset_parent and {asset_parent}.{asset} concatenation:
This is unlike other parts of the codebase. I think people may accidentally issue "PARENT.PARENT.ASSET" with this setup.

counterparty-core/counterparty-core/counterpartycore/lib/messages/fairminter.py

Lines 133 to 134 in 827ae09

	if asset_parent != "":
	asset_name = f"{asset_parent}.{asset}"

There is a parse_subasset_from_asset_name utility that could be used and then the compose fairminter call could accept just an asset like how an issuance works. I also think using subasset_parent instead of asset_parent would be more consistent. There may be other utils for subasset names that could be shared.

counterparty-core/counterparty-core/counterpartycore/lib/messages/issuance.py

Lines 426 to 428 in 827ae09

	subasset_parent, subasset_longname = util.parse_subasset_from_asset_name(
	asset, util.enabled("allow_subassets_on_numerics")
	)