Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SIP-27: Accounts Metadata Request #148

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+95 −0
Open

SIP-27: Accounts Metadata Request #148

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3a8ac41
SIP-27: Accounts Metadata Request
ritave Sep 18, 2024
8a2bd5e
Update SIP-27 with unsaved changes
ritave Sep 18, 2024
38d345f
Changed after code review
ritave Sep 20, 2024
0c4bf40
extension -> client
ritave Sep 20, 2024
18dff37
Use CAIP-2 chains and namespaces
ritave Sep 30, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
64 changes: 64 additions & 0 deletions SIPS/sip-27.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
---
sip: 27
title: Accounts Metadata Request
status: Draft
author: Olaf Tomalka (@ritave)
created: 2024-09-17
---

## Abstract

This SIP allows snaps to retrieve metadata related to accounts that exist in the extension.
ritave marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Motivation

The intention of this SIP is to allow snaps providing new accounts for new chains to be able to list all accounts when selecting one during transfers.
ritave marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Specification

> Indented sections like this are considered non-normative.

> Usage of `CAIP-N` specifications, where `N` is a number, are references to [Chain Agnostic Improvement Proposals](https://github.com/ChainAgnostic/CAIPs).

### Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" written in uppercase in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt)

### Snap Manifest

This SIP specifies a permission named `keyring_listAccountsAll`. This permission grants a snap the ability to retrieve account metadata through an RPC call.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think of this?

Suggested change
This SIP specifies a permission named `keyring_listAccountsAll`. This permission grants a snap the ability to retrieve account metadata through an RPC call.
This SIP specifies a permission named `keyring_listAllAccounts`. This permission grants a snap the ability to retrieve account metadata through an RPC call.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I specifically don't want it to be mistaken with existing keyring_listAccounts, which only lists accounts managed by the Snap. IMHO, by appending it at the end it's more visible,

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if it makes sense to prefix this with keyring_ in the first place. So far these APIs are only used by account Snaps.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we want to display all accounts, we have to support how keyring manages and stores them in the extension, so this API mimics keyring internals almost 1:1.

ritave marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

The permission is specified in `snap.manifest.json` as follows:

```json
{
"initialPermissions": {
"keyring_listAccountsAll": {}
}
}
```

### RPC Method

This SIP exposes a new RPC method called `keyring_listAccountsAll` with no additional parameters.

The RPC call returns with the following data:

```typescript
type KeyringAccount = {
id: string; // An extension-specific unique ID
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it make sense to expose this? What do you envision we use it for?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When you have two accounts with the same address (eg 2 different hardware wallets with the same seed), you need to differentiate them somehow.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like this just complicates things. The Snap has no information about how the address was created, right? Is it even relevant for the Snap?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This provides a stable identity for an account.

For example, you could want to map accounts to a user editable notes about those accounts.

You can't use the name since it's user editable and can change, and you can't use address because there are multiple accounts with the same address.

By providing a stable identity (similar to React's key property) you can easily manipulate those accounts.

address: string; // A blockchain specific public address for the account.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be a CAIP-10 address?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This address can exist on multiple chains at the same time. Keyrings initially had a chains property, but it's not implemented

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then how would you identify which network the address is tied to? 🤔

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The only data available in MetaMask currently is the type property.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess my question is, should we combine type and address into one field with a CAIP-10 address.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ritave ritave Sep 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

type exposes more information than just the network the address is on.

Accounts team envisioned the following types:

type AccountType =
	| 'eip155:eoa'
	| 'eip155:sca:erc4337'
	| 'bip122:p2pk'
	| 'bip122:p2pkh'
	| 'bip122:p2sh'
	| 'bip122:p2wpkh'
	| 'bip122:p2tr';

Notice they are all on mainnet while still differing

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The main goal of type is to differentiate between accounts that may behave differently, such as EOAs and Smart Contract Accounts.

For multichain, we are still working on a solution that addresses two key issues:

  • Storing past Bitcoin addresses
  • Supporting multiple addresses for multiple chains (e.g., Cosmos)

We are considering approaches like addresses: Map<Caip2ChainId, Address[]> or addresses: Caip10Address[] (PR draft). Which is aligned with what you said above.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ritave, I need to double-check, but the reason we dropped the chains field was that CAIP-2 doesn't support wildcards. We considered using eip155:*, even though it wouldn’t be compliant, but ultimately decided to replace it with a filterAccountChains method. This method can be called with a list of CAIP-2 chain IDs, and the Snap will return the list of supported chains from the input where the account can be used.

I'm not super happy with the decision and think we can reconsided the chains field.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIRC, we were also considering using just the CAIP namespace as an alternative to wildcard. This way we can regroup "things" on the same namespace, so instead of eip155:*, we would use eip155.

We started using this pattern in the extension/core IIRC. But this is still not 100% compliant with a true CAIP-2 identifier...

name: string; // User-given nickname for the account in the extension
type: string; // Blockchain specific type of the account. For example "eip155:erc4337"
};
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we wish to have a similar UI than the native one to list the accounts, we might needs some more information coming from the metadata field from InternalAccount (maybe not everything, but I was thinking about hardware-wallet accounts).

In case of HW, the account.type will be eip155:eoa, but we don't encode any other information regarding which HW if comes from. We do have this information in the account.metadata.keyring.type field like:

{
  "id": "651e5769-86b1-4717-ae7b-63a00d7b3872",
  "address": "0x9f753769a4b45e8e2ed61108f1174b5a0939e08e",
  "options": {},
  "methods": [
    ...
  ],
  "type": "eip155:eoa",
  "metadata": {
    "name": "Ledger 1",
    "importTime": 1727081928281,
    "keyring": {
      "type": "Ledger Hardware"
    },
    "lastSelected": 1727081928285,
    "nameLastUpdatedAt": 1727081928286
  }
}

And I believe, if we implement a similar AccountList component to display the list of accounts, we will need this keyring.type information to be able to display the small pill Ledger alongside the account entry.

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 11 16 55

But I think @danroc had a different ideas regarding rendering a AccountList component, so maybe we won't even need to expose any of those metadata :).

I just wanted to be explicit here that type lacks some context/information.


type Keyring_ListAccountsAllResult = KeyringAccount[];
```

> Notice that multiple `Account`s can have the same `address`, for example when there are two hardware wallets using the same seed.

## Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](../LICENSE).
Loading