You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is there meant to be a maximum total supply of issued assets? (e.g. u64::MAX)
Currently, the only limit on the total issuance of a given asset is the one implied by the maximum value of a note ($2^{64} - 1$ units of that asset) and the maximum size of the Orchard note commitment tree ($2^{32}$, if all notes were of that asset — although obviously some notes already exist). This gives an upper bound of just under $2^{96}$. However, there is no implementation guidance on how amounts of an asset should be represented, and so an implementor might naively assume that a u64 is sufficient. ZIP 227 does not explicitly state the type of asset balances (it would be in Specification - Global Issuance State).
Should there be a consensus rule limiting issuance for a given asset? It does not appear to be necessary for the rest of the protocol to function correctly; the argument for balance in § 4.14 Balance and Binding Signature (Orchard), adapted to allow multiple value bases, does not need it.
Whether or not there is such a consensus rule, the type of asset balances should be given.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@arya2 asked:
Currently, the only limit on the total issuance of a given asset is the one implied by the maximum value of a note ($2^{64} - 1$ units of that asset) and the maximum size of the Orchard note commitment tree ($2^{32}$ , if all notes were of that asset — although obviously some notes already exist). This gives an upper bound of just under $2^{96}$ . However, there is no implementation guidance on how amounts of an asset should be represented, and so an implementor might naively assume that a
u64
is sufficient. ZIP 227 does not explicitly state the type of asset balances (it would be in Specification - Global Issuance State).Should there be a consensus rule limiting issuance for a given asset? It does not appear to be necessary for the rest of the protocol to function correctly; the argument for balance in § 4.14 Balance and Binding Signature (Orchard), adapted to allow multiple value bases, does not need it.
Whether or not there is such a consensus rule, the type of asset balances should be given.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: