Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
nick-stacks
force-pushed
the
fix/sbtc-balance-testnet
branch
from
9e97b0a to
a2bdc58
Compare
nick-stacks
force-pushed
the
fix/sbtc-balance-testnet
branch
from
a2bdc58 to
82214d7
Compare
nick-stacks
force-pushed
the
fix/sbtc-balance-testnet
branch
from
82214d7 to
6784e25
Compare
|
Deployment failed with the following error: |
src/app/token/[tokenId]/consts.ts
Outdated
| export const SBTC_TOKEN_ASSET_ID_TESTNET = | ||
| 'ST1F7QA2MDF17S807EPA36TSS8AMEFY4KA9TVGWXT.sbtc-token::sbtc-token'; | ||
|
|
||
| export const SBTC_DEPOSIT_CONTRACT_ID_MAINNET = 'SM3VDXK3WZZSA84XXFKAFAF15NNZX32CTSG82JFQ4'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this have the .sbtc-deposit modifier like SBTC_DEPOSIT_CONTRACT_ID_TESTNET below?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cylewitruk Thanks for flagging this, I pushed a fixed. Could you confirm the addresses used for sBtc here are correct?
heidar-stacks
force-pushed
the
fix/sbtc-balance-testnet
branch
from
f85dc5c to
d5a20aa
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
matteojug-stacks
left a comment
matteojug-stacks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM in general -- I didn't see anything strange, but I'm not familiar with the codebase nor I'm going to nitpick.
The testnet address used is the one from Hiro's faucet, which seems the best one at the moment.
djordon
left a comment
djordon
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the address listed here for testnet sBTC, ST1F7QA2MDF17S807EPA36TSS8AMEFY4KA9TVGWXT, is the one that Hiro deployed. This is not the same one that the sBTC team has deployed, which is from SN69P7RZRKK8ERQCCABHT2JWKB2S4DHH9H74231T. There are some notable differences between the two:
- At the moment, it's much easier to use the Hiro faucet for testnet sBTC because it is fast and usually works without issue. I just tried it though and I think it failed.
- The sBTC teams testnet sBTC is harder to obtain. At the moment, the user needs to acquire sBTC and then go over the testnet bridge. This is harder to do because getting testnet BTC is buggy (the sBTC team doesn’t maintain that, Hiro did and now Stacks Labs does), and even bridging can be challenging because of wallet bugs and an issues with testnet mempool and such. It’s a mess. However we can change this if we want.
- Hiro’s old deployment does not include the full suite of smart contracts. They deployed the token, registry, and deposit smart contracts, leaving out the “governance/key-rotation” and withdrawal smart contracts. That makes sense given the constraints, but it would be nice to have the withdrawal smart contract even on testnet, which was shipped in the sBTC team’s deployment. This is probably easy to can fix right now though.
- In the not too distant future, it would be nice to have better integration with the BTC side of things even on testnet. This is to allow testing of any functionality that people may have where there is an interaction of bitcoin, stacks, and sBTC. So slight preference on using the sBTC team’s testnet deployment. The downside to this is that we need to fix all of the issues mentioned in (2).
- Leather treated the sBTC team’s token as the “canonical” one. I’m not sure if that is still the case, but one looks more official than the other.
I'm not sure where this leaves us. We'll need to debate this offline.
| export const SBTC_TOKEN_CONTRACT_ID_MAINNET = | ||
| 'SM3VDXK3WZZSA84XXFKAFAF15NNZX32CTSG82JFQ4.sbtc-token'; | ||
| export const SBTC_TOKEN_CONTRACT_ID_TESTNET = | ||
| 'ST1F7QA2MDF17S807EPA36TSS8AMEFY4KA9TVGWXT.sbtc-token'; |
6 participants
What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
Description
Fixes sbtc issues on testnet
sbtc navbar link went to the mainnet sbtc page
sbtc testnet balances were 0
sbtc token page showed the token as unverified
Issue ticket number and link
Checklist:
Screenshots (if appropriate):