-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 99
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
Meta SNIP-75: security council #93
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
For reference, this is the current upgradability structure: Starknet would need to give up the permissions for all Proxy governors, Implementation governors, Verifier governors and bridge owners. Also, as per the Risk rosette framework and the Stages framework, the Exit window and Stage designation will stay at zero until forced transactions are implemented and proving is made permissionless. |
Co-authored-by: Luca Donno <30298476+lucadonnoh@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Luca Donno <30298476+lucadonnoh@users.noreply.github.com>
merge all security council snips
merge all security council snips
Could we get Starkware's opinion and more clarity on the roadmap, @iliav-starkware? (Can't ping Boaz, though I know he owns this track) |
Hey @Eikix, could you add sections "Rationale" and "Security considerations" to the SNIP, in order to keep a uniform syntax among SNIPs? Let's merge afterwards (after renumbering the SNIP) |
before merging, could we get Boaz's input or whoever is in charge of the security council is Starknet? |
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale. |
Deactivating Stale Label. I've heard Starkware (SW) and Starknet Foundation (SNF) have iterated and found an alternative design for the Security Council. We'll then be able to merge the SNIP and move forward |
Drafting the meta SNIP for Security Council as part of the Fête du SNIP