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

Document the sBTC PoX Contract #9

Open
netrome opened this issue Jul 20, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #64
Open

Document the sBTC PoX Contract #9

netrome opened this issue Jul 20, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #64
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@netrome
Copy link
Contributor

netrome commented Jul 20, 2023

Definition of done

The documentation contains a chapter explaining which functions the new PoX contract should contain, their purpose and who calls them.

Note: This should focus on the public interface and anything critical to the sBTC design. Implementation details may be omitted.

@netrome
Copy link
Contributor Author

netrome commented Jul 20, 2023

Open question: I know sBTC Mini is broken down to many contracts. I don't know if we'll do the same with the final PoX contract. If so, it could be good to document the public interface but also provide an explanation of the sub-contracts as sub-chapters.

@netrome netrome assigned netrome and MarvinJanssen and unassigned netrome Jul 31, 2023
@MarvinJanssen
Copy link
Member

It would be more runtime cost efficient to keep the contracts split, but let's discuss that on docs.

@netrome
Copy link
Contributor Author

netrome commented Aug 1, 2023

It would be more runtime cost efficient to keep the contracts split, but let's discuss that on docs.

Let's aim for a similar structure. I think it is easier to understand a collection of small focused contracts for a reader rather than one single massive contract too.

I guess only the asset contract and PoX will be externally facing in sBTC though, so let's focus on those for starters.

@MarvinJanssen
Copy link
Member

I agree.

@netrome netrome assigned setzeus and unassigned MarvinJanssen Aug 1, 2023
@setzeus setzeus linked a pull request Aug 13, 2023 that will close this issue
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 17, 2024

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Mar 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: Status: 💻 In Progress
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants