Skip to content

[ZIP 230] Adding back the assetBase field to the IssueNote structure #1081

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
vivek-arte wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[ZIP 230] Adding back the assetBase field to the IssueNote structure #1081

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions zips/zip-0230.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -467,6 +467,8 @@ An issuance note, ``IssueNote`` contains the following fields:
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8 |``value`` |``uint64`` |The amount being issued in this note. |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 32 |``assetBase`` |``byte[32]`` |The encoding of the Asset Base. |
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@str4d str4d Sep 2, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The removal was an intentional choice by the ZIP Editors: 80ac162 (see commit message for rationale).

If you have alternative rationale for having it in the format, please provide it. Otherwise, close this PR.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@vivek-arte vivek-arte Sep 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see - there is a benefit in terms of reduced transaction size, and the removal of that consensus check.

The way the issuance bundle is structured, however, it is not possible to completely specify the constituent Issue Notes as they are parsed -- the issuer identifier (issuer) field is only parsed after the entire vIssueActions vector, but it is needed to be able to construct the Issue Note.

We can avoid this if we reorder the issuance bundle to start first with issuer, then the vIssueActions vector, then the issueAuthSig; accompanied by the appropriate change in the digest algorithm. (Or we can include the asset base in the Issue Note, as in this PR)

I prepared this change in #1086 , along with some other necessary corrections (such as the note size being changed to 115 bytes from 147 bytes, and the removal of the now extra consensus checks).

I'd appreciate if you could review and let me know what you think works best, and we can close one of these PRs.

+-----------------------------+------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 32 |``rho`` |``byte[32]`` |This is defined and encoded in the same manner as for Orchard notes |
| | | |in §3.2.1 ‘Note Plaintexts and Memo Fields’. |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Expand Down