Conversation
…ents for transferable records
…ry command just for clarity
| > | ||
| > Otherwise, this will result in a scenario where multiple documents being tied to a single Title Escrow Contract, preventing changes to the Beneficiary and Holder addresses for the individual documents in that batch. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the correct reason for not being able to do batch process when creating transferrable records? I'm also trying to understand the reason behind this.😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
close but slightly inaccurate - the title escrow contract is just a construct to enable constraints on transfers
the actual mechanism of transferable record is done by the token registry (which conforms to ethereum ERC721 specification), so the violation here is that the MLETR requires a 1-1 mapping between a token id and the asset ownership record. if batching happens then it will be a 1-many mapping from token id to asset records
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @rjchow!🙇♂️ I have updated the reason for this part. Let me know if it is more accurate now.😀
| 1. Ensures that the `targetHash` and the `proof` matches the `merkleRoot`. | ||
| 1. Checks the `merkleRoot` is in the document store provided, by calling the `isIssued` function from the deployed contract. | ||
| - Checks the `merkleRoot` of the document has been issued: | ||
| - Checks the `merkleRoot` of the document hasn't been revoked: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It reads to me like this section of the bullet points is for checking of documents to see if they have been revoked, is that right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yea looks like it! good catch
| |Argument |Description |Example Value | | ||
| |---------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | ||
| |-a |Address of your token registry contract|`0x8431012Bc040942B59e3C5bf428221eab0b2f723` | | ||
| |--tokenId|Merkle root hash (with a `0x` prefix) |`0x0d9839a8034cb783d98bd57bcbaafb4dc3614c4193d2edf8a655c1ec6635b7ea`| | ||
| |--to |Address of your title escrow contract |`0xec733A8322f8216eaf8e5566e750bfee3974B7f3` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just thought a table with the arguments looked easier when following through the tutorial. But the original bullet points is perfectly fine too!😁
| ### Issuance | ||
|
|
||
| DIDs [are significantly faster and incur not costs](/docs/verifiable-document/comparison). They could directly use the `targetHash` of the document (which is unique) and sign it using the private key associated. However for consistency with our initial design, we sign the `merkleRoot`. | ||
| DIDs [are significantly faster and incur no costs](/docs/verifiable-document/comparison). They could directly use the `targetHash` of the document (which is unique) and sign it using the private key associated. However for consistency with our initial design, we sign the `merkleRoot`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably just a grammar typo. If I understood correctly, it meant that using DID will not incur costs until there is a need for revocation. Let me know if that's right. :)
rjchow
left a comment
rjchow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i can't remove this review request and it's cluttering up my inbox
2 participants
Just some random edits I've made when going through the documentation. Let me know if any of them make sense or we can revert any of the edit commits too! Thanks!😄
Remarks for the edits are added as comments in this PR.