Access Control #47
Merged
Access Control #47
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
gakonst
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2021
aniemerg
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Thinking how to set up access control in a way that would allow us for controlled decentralization, I realized that the AccessControl contract I coded with OpenZeppelin can be tweaked into something great.
There is a root role, and there is an implicit role for each function in the contract. Root can grant and revoke access to a function. Anyone can renounce access if they wish to do so. Root can lock the role for a function, so that no one (even himself) can grant access to that function ever again.
We can even delegate admin roles, if we grow to such a size that it would make sense to do so.