Granular Asset Minting #491

SilentCicero · 2023-06-05T13:19:44Z

Abstract

This PR introduces granular asset minting which would enable sub identifiers to be included at asset creation. These sub identifiers can include important metadata and be used to enable native level NFTs.

This adds:

A new asset ID construction (which incorporates the contract ID and the sub asset ID).
New receipt logs for minting and burning which are helpful for indexing.
Changes to the MINT and BURN opcodes.

Cons

This removes the nice feature that asset IDs are the contract ID.

Pros

Native level UTXO based NFTs.
Single contract multi-asset pools (useful for common AMM designs).

Implementation tickets/PRs:

src/vm/instruction_set.md

Dentosal · 2023-06-05T13:55:25Z

Possible optimization would be to add a cheap way to get the default subasset, i.e. all zeroes. It would be quite unfortunate if ALOC+CLI instruction pair must be performed even when a contract doesn't use subassets. A possible downside with this approach is that it's possible to not support subassets in some contract, but I think that can be alleviated by having proper tools on Sway side.

I think we can merge this as-is anyway, and figure out what, if any, optimizations are needed when implementing this.

src/vm/instruction_set.md

src/protocol/id/asset.md

src/vm/instruction_set.md

dmihal · 2023-06-06T09:38:49Z

I was just looking over EIP-3525, which uses the word "slot" to represent the sub-IDs of these tokens.

Any thoughts on the word "slot" instead of "sub_id"?

@SilentCicero @SwayStar123

SwayStar123 · 2023-06-06T09:59:00Z

I was just looking over EIP-3525, which uses the word "slot" to represent the sub-IDs of these tokens.

Any thoughts on the word "slot" instead of "sub_id"?

@SilentCicero @SwayStar123

Slots and token_ids seem to be seperate concepts in erc3525, I dont think it would be accurate here. The original multi-token rfc that I wrote was inspired by erc1155.

I would prefer just identifier over sub_indentifier, as contractid and assetid are already distinct i dont think there would be any confusion here, but sub_indentifier is also fine

xgreenx · 2023-06-16T11:10:25Z

src/protocol/id/asset.md

+# Asset ID
+
+The _asset ID_ (also called _asset hash_) of a asset is computed as
+the [hash](../cryptographic_primitives.md#hashing) of the `CONTRACT_ID` and a 256-bit `SUB_IDENTIFIER`.


Do we want to support the None sub-identifier? In this case, the contract still can mint AssetId == ContractId.

Of course, we can't use None, but we can use some magic value instead like zeroed sub-identifier or a maximum sub-identifier.

I believe the decision was to rip the band-aid off, and break the tie that AssetId == ContractID

It'll be more confusing if they're sometimes equal, and sometimes different.

If we don't need backward compatibility, then okay=) But it means it is a super breaking change

Yep, it's a breaking change, but that's why it's important we get it in soon so teams can adjust

src/protocol/abi/receipts.md

SilentCicero · 2023-06-20T11:48:19Z

Possible optimization would be to add a cheap way to get the default subasset, i.e. all zeroes. It would be quite unfortunate if ALOC+CLI instruction pair must be performed even when a contract doesn't use subassets. A possible downside with this approach is that it's possible to not support subassets in some contract, but I think that can be alleviated by having proper tools on Sway side.

I think we can merge this as-is anyway, and figure out what, if any, optimizations are needed when implementing this.

Regarding this, there might be some clever ways we can tuck the pre-image in the transaction.

…token # Conflicts: # src/identifiers/asset.md # src/protocol/id/index.md

src/abi/receipts.md

Voxelot · 2023-07-13T19:27:36Z

src/abi/receipts.md

+{
+  "type": "Mint",
+  "sub_id": "0x39150017c9e38e5e280432d546fae345d6ce6d8fe4710162c2e3a95a6faff051",
+  "contract_id": "0x39150017c9e38e5e280432d546fae345d6ce6d8fe4710162c2e3a95a6faff051",


this breaks our convention of using id for the contract like other receipts. Any particular reason we used contract_id instead of just id? cc @SilentCicero @dmihal

It's nice to avoid confusion, since this interaction has 3 different IDs (contract ID, asset ID & sub-ID)

If we want to stay consistent, would it make sense to change id to contract_id in the other receipts?

Co-authored-by: Green Baneling <XgreenX9999@gmail.com>

This pull request is an upgrade to a `fuel-core 0.20.1` release. The biggest changes coming from this new release is a rework of how AssetId is structured to support [granular asset minting](FuelLabs/fuel-specs#491). This means a contract can mint and burn multiple AssetId's, and the ContractId != AssetId. --------- Co-authored-by: bitzoic <bitzoic.eth@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Cameron Carstens <54727135+bitzoic@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Sophie Dankel <47993817+sdankel@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Brandon Kite <brandonkite92@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Sophie <sophiedankel@gmail.com>

dmihal · 2023-09-08T08:49:39Z

Any thoughts on having MINT and BURN return the resulting asset ID? Would save some contracts from needing to do duplicate hashing to calculate the address.

SilentCicero added 8 commits May 30, 2023 03:31

Update instruction_set.md

5b45319

Update instruction_set.md

062375e

Update instruction_set.md

d3c6e87

Create asset.md

27f7e69

Update index.md

045bbc3

Update instruction_set.md

e886b34

Update receipts.md

2698ee6

Update instruction_set.md

816362b

Dentosal reviewed Jun 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/vm/instruction_set.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Dentosal reviewed Jun 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/vm/instruction_set.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

SilentCicero requested review from Voxelot, dmihal and xgreenx June 5, 2023 14:01

SwayStar123 reviewed Jun 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/vm/instruction_set.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dmihal reviewed Jun 5, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/protocol/id/asset.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/vm/instruction_set.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

This was referenced Jun 6, 2023

Switch to multi-asset support FuelLabs/bridge-fungible-token#64

Open

native multi token support FuelLabs/rfcs#17

Closed

SilentCicero added 5 commits June 6, 2023 05:48

Update SUB_IDENTIFIER

c4aab7a

Small nits.

3e9fdfd

Small nits.

c7610c6

sub_id

b48cdd6

sub_id in receipts.

62e613f

This was referenced Jun 9, 2023

Update std-lib to reflect new granular asset minting spec FuelLabs/sway#4644

Closed

SRC-20; Token Standard FuelLabs/sway-standards#1

Closed

xgreenx reviewed Jun 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

xgreenx mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2023

Support multi asset per contract FuelLabs/fuel-vm#496

Closed

xgreenx reviewed Jun 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/protocol/abi/receipts.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

SilentCicero mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2023

[FIP-1] Introduce Non-Fungible Tokens to the UTXO Set #455

Open

Update transaction.md

65b03c7

Voxelot and others added 5 commits July 10, 2023 16:19

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into SilentCicero-multi-…

e3d430b

…token # Conflicts: # src/identifiers/asset.md # src/protocol/id/index.md

merge conflicts

1a421c9

fix links

7cd030c

fix asset id construction

351eff1

Merge branch 'master' into SilentCicero-multi-token

83f555b

xgreenx previously approved these changes Jul 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/abi/receipts.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/abi/receipts.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Voxelot reviewed Jul 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

bitzoic mentioned this pull request Jul 27, 2023

Update links for multi-token standard FuelLabs/sway-applications#715

Merged

Merge branch 'master' into SilentCicero-multi-token

c318dcc

Voxelot dismissed xgreenx’s stale review via c318dcc August 7, 2023 21:37

Apply suggestions from code review

4c88a94

Co-authored-by: Green Baneling <XgreenX9999@gmail.com>

Voxelot approved these changes Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

Voxelot merged commit b241dc9 into master Aug 7, 2023
4 checks passed

Voxelot deleted the SilentCicero-multi-token branch August 7, 2023 21:40

Voxelot mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2023

An upgrade to fuel-core v0.20.3 FuelLabs/sway#4821

Merged

bitzoic mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2023

Native multi token support FuelLabs/rfcs#18

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Granular Asset Minting #491

Granular Asset Minting #491

SilentCicero commented Jun 5, 2023 •

edited by dmihal

Dentosal commented Jun 5, 2023

dmihal commented Jun 6, 2023

SwayStar123 commented Jun 6, 2023

xgreenx Jun 16, 2023

dmihal Jul 11, 2023

xgreenx Jul 11, 2023

dmihal Jul 11, 2023

SilentCicero commented Jun 20, 2023

Voxelot Jul 13, 2023

dmihal Jul 24, 2023

dmihal commented Sep 8, 2023

Granular Asset Minting #491

Granular Asset Minting #491

Conversation

SilentCicero commented Jun 5, 2023 • edited by dmihal

Abstract

Cons

Pros

Dentosal commented Jun 5, 2023

dmihal commented Jun 6, 2023

SwayStar123 commented Jun 6, 2023

xgreenx Jun 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmihal Jul 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xgreenx Jul 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmihal Jul 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SilentCicero commented Jun 20, 2023

Voxelot Jul 13, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmihal Jul 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmihal commented Sep 8, 2023

SilentCicero commented Jun 5, 2023 •

edited by dmihal