Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Transcoder ENS Integration - Phase 1 #6
Give a 3 sentence description about this proposal.
Complete the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) integration within the Livepeer infrastructure. The integration will allow Transcoders to be identified and interacted with using an ENS name. This is a continuation of work Chris organized at the ENS Workshop in August 2018.
Describe the problem you are solving.
It's difficult to identify a transcoder on the Livepeer Explorer. An Ethereum address identifies the transcoder. An LPT holder looking to bond to a transcoder must map the address from the Explorer to the transcoder campaign on the Livepeer Forum.
When bonding, the LPT holder must confirm they are sending LPT to the correct Ethereum address. Giving transcoders human readable names would simplify both processes. The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) can provide these names.
Describe the solution you are proposing.
Phase 1 Scope -
For Further Investigation -
Describe the scope of the project including a rough timeline and milestones
Note: The anticipated Phase 2 would include forming the team to do the work and manage the work to complete the integration.
Timeline - Approximately 3 weeks, start to finish
Please estimate hours spent on project based on the above
Total = 6 days @ 8 hrs/day
@chris-remus @ericxtang I'm not sure if I understand your question Eric, is it, how do they register, what is the process for getting an ENS name, and is this done on the explorer or personal reach out? Chris has one bullet that says "Registration process for transcoder," do you think that is what he's referring to there?
The transcoder would request their subdomain of the chosen transcoder domain. Assuming Livepeer owns that domain, Livepeer could issue the subdomain. I understand @dob has ideas on the preferred domain.
Livepeer could also build subdomain registration into the explorer. This would be more involved. It would also introduce uncertainty into the process. For example, a bad actor could register a subdomain that should belong to a known transcoder.
I think for now the first option's the way to go. We could pursue the second option in a next iteration, possibly after the Streamflow release. These are the two options we'd decide between during this phase of the project.
Thank you @chris-remus. For this Phase 1 of planning, we propose a 345 LPT planning grant. It is really important that it leads to Phase 2: execution. Failure here is to create a plan and not move into implementation.
The first 3 items on this list should be done as part of this grant application, not part of the grant.
For Phase 1: 345 LPT