Create stacks caip19.md #68
Conversation
|
Hey @friedger , glad to see you back! Sorry for slow turnaround time, I'm on family leave, but will still try to get this merged in a reasonable time frame. |
|
@friedger i'm back! Did you have a chance to review my suggestions? |
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| # Stacks Mainnet NFT： | ||
| stacks:1/sip9:SP3D6PV2ACBPEKYJTCMH7HEN02KP87QSP8KTEH335.megapont-space-agency/4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sorry but I don't see any explanation of the .megapont-space-agency segment in ## Syntax section, nor would it be allowed by Stacks/caip10 or by caip19 itself... is it really necessary or should that information/disambiguation mechanism live elsewhere, for example, in a query or matrix parameter at the end of the URI?
| ## Syntax | ||
|
|
||
| After the [CAIP-2][] (namespace+chainID), a slash defines an `asset_namespace` and an `asset_reference`. | ||
| The `asset_namespace` is defined via the SIP or |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sentence fragment? perhaps a commit get left off the PR?
| stacks:1/sip9:SP3D6PV2ACBPEKYJTCMH7HEN02KP87QSP8KTEH335.megapont-space-agency/4 | ||
|
|
||
| # Stacks Mainnet xBTC | ||
| stacks:1/sip10:SP3DX3H4FEYZJZ586MFBS25ZW3HZDMEW92260R2PR.Wrapped-Bitcoin |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The stacks/caip10 syntax is case-insensitive (or all-caps, to be more precise) which I assume is carried over from the Stacks native addressing system. Would it make sense or simplify things for this naming convention to match, to reduce the phishing/impersonation vector of i/I/l/L ambiguities, etc etc?
|
this is incredibly embarassing to admit (immutably and publicly, no less) but my three in-line comments above were sitting in draft unsent for... a year, thanks to a github.com UX change that passed me by unnoticed. sincere apologies if you got notifications that made no sense referring to unseen comments. |
|
This is great, would love to see it get merged |
me too, honestly! @kyranjamie , if you or anyone from the groupchat can answer my clarifying questions above and, if needed, address them in a new PR forked from this one and targeting main, I'm happy to merge! Just need the nits addressed, hehe |
Adds comprehensive CAIP-19 specification for Stacks token assets,
supporting SIP-010 fungible tokens and SIP-009 non-fungible tokens.
Asset reference format: {address}.{contract}.{token-name}
This addresses the feedback from PR ChainAgnostic#68 including:
- Clear documentation of all syntax components
- Case sensitivity handling (addresses vs contract/token names)
- Complete RegEx validation patterns
- Semantics section for each token type
Examples verified against on-chain data (sBTC, Megapont Ape Club).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Hi @friedger and @bumblefudge, We've created an updated implementation that addresses all the review feedback from this PR: #167 - feat(stacks): add CAIP-19 asset specification Key changes:
Would love your feedback on the updated approach! |
4 participants
This PR