Burn Request Fix #18
Burn Request Fix #18
Conversation
muskbuster
commented
Nov 20, 2024
muskbuster
commented
- Locks transfers from sender side while waiting for burn callback ( Locks entire balance)
- Allows retry of burn which can be overridden to add some cooldown time.
npasquie
left a comment
npasquie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The locked token mechanism is correct but the implem has some issues
tbh we should redo the reference implem from scratch or take the one from zama if we agree on design choices (which we don't necessarly)
| Identity public immutable identityContract; | ||
| uint8 private minimumAge; | ||
| uint64 public constant transferLimit = (20000 * 10 ** 6); | ||
| euint64 public TRANSFER_LIMIT = TFHE.asEuint64(transferLimit); // 20,000 tokens with 6 decimals |
| struct BurnRq { | ||
| address account; | ||
| uint64 amount; | ||
| bool exists; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not convinced this is useful ?
It only ever has true as a value, "non existant" Burn Requests have address(0) as account and amount 0
| function transfer(address to, euint64 value) public virtual returns (bool) { | ||
| require(TFHE.isSenderAllowed(value)); | ||
| address owner = _msgSender(); | ||
| ebool isTransferable = TFHE.le(value, _balances[msg.sender]); |
|
|
||
| ebool canTransfer = TFHE.le(amount, _balances[owner]); | ||
| ebool isTransferable = TFHE.and(canTransfer, allowedTransfer); | ||
| ebool isTransferable = TFHE.le(amount, currentAllowance); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't the eamount already containt this check and passed when this func is called ?
| * | ||
| * Does not emit an {Approval} event. | ||
| */ | ||
| function _increaseAllowance(address spender, euint64 addedValue) internal virtual returns (ebool) { |
| _totalSupply += value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| event BurnRequested(uint256 requestId, address account, uint64 amount); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
events should be at the top of the file
|
|
||
| error BurnRequestDoesNotExist(uint256 requestId); | ||
|
|
||
| function _cancelBurn(uint256 requestId) internal virtual { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you must check the calling account is allowed to do this
| function _burnCallback(uint256 requestID, bool decryptedInput) public virtual onlyGateway { | ||
| event InsufficientBalanceToBurn(address account, uint64 burnAmount); | ||
|
|
||
| function _burnCallback(uint256 requestID, bool hasEnoughBalance) public virtual onlyGateway { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the underlyning token transfer is missing
| */ | ||
| constructor(string memory name_, string memory symbol_) ConfidentialERC20(name_, symbol_) { | ||
| _owner = msg.sender; | ||
| constructor(string memory name_, string memory symbol_) ConfidentialERC20(name_, symbol_)Ownable(msg.sender) { |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function _burnCallback(uint256 requestID, bool decryptedInput) public virtual override onlyGateway { | ||
| function _burnCallback(uint256 requestID, bool hasEnoughBalance) public override onlyGateway { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why are we overriding this method if it already does the same thing in confidential erc20 ?
2 participants
