Verification Logic on Safe Network

[Nigel]

Great to see you resurrecting this topic.

I voted undecided for now because of my possible misunderstanding. Maybe you could clear that up for me.

Couldn’t smart contracts already be built with what exists? I just assumed some more specific code could be written utilizing

@mav

the permissions layer such as read, append, delete operations

That way the base layer system remains simpler. If you think that is possible then do you see it beneficial one way or the other? These more time consuming operations (such as signature accumulation) would only be applicable to a running smart contact, correct?
Part of what lead me to thinking this was this post from David.

@dirvine

Think of multisig, which we have the machinery for but not enabled yet. So you have several data points (Mutable Data) which represent agreements of sorts. So App A agrees and sign’s an MD to do something (swap owners or whatever it is supposed to do, add comments, or change data etc.). It sends the signature (this is the part we have not agree on, this send signature part) but the MD will not change until App B agrees conditions are met. Then it to can sign the MD And it will change.

You can expand a lot on this pattern and have “smart contracts” a term that has become widely overused. I prefer to think of this as network agreed logic. In any case this is a huge area, but I think many folk will see this simplistic pattern above is the basis for smart multi level contracts that execute in a domino type effect but clearly so and can depend on in network “oracles” (another term I hate) or worst case out of network oracles (which I feel invalidates many contracts, smart or not).

Maybe I misunderstood this though.

Another question.

@mav

Do you think we should consider extending these ‘change conditions’ to also allow smart contracts?

What would need to be added?

@mav

Allows for more flexible conditions for triggering changes, eg a change may be valid if

• some other event has already happened (such as the network growing to a certain size)

If smart contracts were built into the network and network events such as these could be known to a smart contract could this become an attack surface? Otherwise are these things known fully? I suppose I assumed network metrics to monitor its growth and health would likely be something of value so maybe this info is available no matter what and not a worry? Maybe it’s a good thing even.
I guess I’m wondering what kind of ideas you have in mind for a smart contract execute upon such events.

If a user knew they were engaging with a smart contract somehow and if regular network functions (such as append, mutate, etc) aren’t inhibited then I wonder if there is much downside at all.

I would say a big no to integrating another projects blockchain. Interoperability would be great but I don’t think it would be worth the effort.