From fd64da85878310f7bc3a46dd6c9a0e89a12258aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aleksandr Bezobchuk Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:04:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Update assumptions --- docs/ics/ics-xxx-signed-messages.md | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/ics/ics-xxx-signed-messages.md b/docs/ics/ics-xxx-signed-messages.md index e7d4e1a58c..7516050565 100644 --- a/docs/ics/ics-xxx-signed-messages.md +++ b/docs/ics/ics-xxx-signed-messages.md @@ -76,6 +76,12 @@ cases. This may require introducing prefixes to transactions. concrete types are registered. Can we rely on this mechanism or do we need a custom true injective encoding? +User-agents such Voyager, Metamask, and Ledger may provide human-readable and +structured data, but this data must be consistent in terms of the field types +and structure itself encoded via `amino`. This would require said applications +to have an `amino` implementation. This may yet further warrant a simple custom +encoding. + > TODO: Do we need to implement a custom encoding scheme instead of or atop amino similar or equal to EIP-712 `hashStruct`? As far as I know, this is mostly due to providing Soldity efficiencies and addressing limitations.