Hip 991 patch #1044
Merged
Hip 991 patch #1044
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Update parameters; Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bertone <giuseppe.bertone@hashgraph.com>
Several in depth technical discussions have taken place and this is a PR to add the conclusions of those conversations to the HIP to correctly reflect the implementation
…roposal into hip-991-patch
Signed-off-by: Michael Heinrichs <netopyr@users.noreply.github.com>
✅ Deploy Preview for hedera-hips ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
mgarbs
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2024
2 tasks
kimbor
reviewed
Sep 11, 2024
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| #### ConsensusUpdateTopicTransactionBody | ||
|
|
||
| The `ConsensusUpdateTopicTransactionBody` message is updated to include the optional Fee Schedule Key and `custom_fees` property for specifying fixed fees during topic creation. | ||
| The `ConsensusUpdateTopicTransactionBody` message is updated to include the optional Fee Schedule Key, the optional Fee Exempt Key List, and the `custom_fees` property for specifying fixed fees during topic creation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The `ConsensusUpdateTopicTransactionBody` message is updated to include the optional Fee Schedule Key, the optional Fee Exempt Key List, and the `custom_fees` property for specifying fixed fees during topic creation. | |
| The `ConsensusUpdateTopicTransactionBody` message is updated to include the optional Fee Schedule Key, the optional Fee Exempt Key List, the `custom_fees` property for specifying fixed fees during topic creation, and the `key_verification_mode` property for specifying whether invalid keys are allowed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
key_verification_mode should be explained in the text above
kimbor
reviewed
Sep 11, 2024
|
|
||
| #### Fee Exclusions (SDK) | ||
| * **Signatures for Invalid/Inactive/Deleted Accounts**: | ||
| - The FEKL list will only require keys to be formally valid as per protobuf specifications, meaning they must be correctly formatted key structures. These are keys, not accounts. Even if an account associated with a key is inactive, deleted, or non-existent, the key itself can still be added to the FEKL. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is key_verification_mode meant to change this behavior?
kimbor
reviewed
Sep 11, 2024
| @@ -105,24 +105,40 @@ We propose adding a fixed fee mechanism to the Hedera Consensus Service (HCS) fo | |||
| * If the `allowCustomFeesPayment` flag is not set or is not true, the SDK returns an error. | |||
| * The `allowCustomFeesPayment` flag exists only in the SDK and isn't enforced by the network. | |||
|
|
|||
| * **Allowance Transactions**: | |||
| - An account submits a transaction to grant an allowance (total fees and maximum fee per message) to a topic for both HBAR and HTS tokens. This transaction type reuses the existing allowance concept, with no need for a separate delete allowance transaction. To remove an allowance, the user will submit the same transaction with the allowance values set to 0 or a dedicated flag indicating allowance removal. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - An account submits a transaction to grant an allowance (total fees and maximum fee per message) to a topic for both HBAR and HTS tokens. This transaction type reuses the existing allowance concept, with no need for a separate delete allowance transaction. To remove an allowance, the user will submit the same transaction with the allowance values set to 0 or a dedicated flag indicating allowance removal. | |
| - An account submits a transaction to grant an allowance (total fees and maximum fee per message) to a topic for both HBAR and HTS tokens. This transaction type reuses the existing allowance concept, with no need for a separate delete allowance transaction. To remove an allowance, the user will submit the same transaction with the allowance values set to 0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see a flag specified in the FeeScheduleAllowance messages below, so I'm thinking that we decided against a dedicated flag
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description:
Merged all changes from:
Added modifications from discussions