Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SFC: ERC 20 bridge: all different ERC 20 configurations on the same bridge #34

Closed
drinkcoffee opened this issue Oct 25, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #35
Closed

SFC: ERC 20 bridge: all different ERC 20 configurations on the same bridge #34

drinkcoffee opened this issue Oct 25, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #35
Assignees

Comments

@drinkcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

The ERC 20 bridge Solidity code (https://github.com/ConsenSys/gpact/tree/main/application/nonatomic-appcontracts/erc20bridge/src/main/solidity) at present allows multiple ERC 20 token types to be transferred across the one bridge. However, a bridge contract is either deployed as a Mass Conservation bridge, or a Minting / Burning bridge. Each token is likely to need a different configuration.

For example:
Blockchain A. Blockchain B. Blockchain C
Token A Mass C. Mass C. Mass C.
Token B. Mass C. Mint Burn
Token C. Mint Burn. Mass C. Mass C.

To support this variety of ERC 20 token configurations, the bridge needs to have a configuration item when a token contract is added, indicating what type the token contract is. That is, the configuration should specify how the bridge should use the token contract: transferFrom or mint.

@drinkcoffee drinkcoffee self-assigned this Oct 25, 2021
@drinkcoffee
Copy link
Contributor Author

A fix for this in on erc20bridge-unify branch

@drinkcoffee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Pull request: #35

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant