Introduce the Pausable Library

[bitzoic]

Type of change

• New Library

Changes

The following changes have been made:

• Adds the Pausable Library to the sway-libs repo

Notes

• This library is completely stateless and relies on a pre-defined sub-id to mint and burn an asset that represents a state. This is being called "packet-oriented design" and saves users 20% gas in my tests as opposed to storing a bool in storage. It also does not require that the developer pass a StorageKey for the library to properly function.

Related Issues

Closes #198

[Braqzen]

Outside of global search and replace knits in this whole PR there's only 1 point to make.

This is an interesting design mechanism but its design is flawed. There is a comment to use admin restrictions nevertheless it allows for spamming of an asset if somewhere where to go wrong and have the balance altered. This may affect the market.

Moreover, it's really a hack to save costs rather than a solid design. I don't believe in promoting hacks. If this wasn't a security based library then I'd have less of an issue with a hack and some asset potentially being nuked in value so I'd go back to statefulness

[bitzoic]

This is an interesting design mechanism but its design is flawed. There is a comment to use admin restrictions nevertheless it allows for spamming of an asset if somewhere where to go wrong and have the balance altered. This may affect the market.

Your comment makes no sense. The design is not flawed. Admin restrictions only allow a SINGLE user to pause rather than anyone. There cannot be spamming of an asset, when minting may only happen in the case of NO tokens. There is NO market involved.

Moreover, it's really a hack to save costs rather than a solid design. I don't believe in promoting hacks. If this wasn't a security based library then I'd have less of an issue with a hack and some asset potentially being nuked in value so I'd go back to statefulness

This is NOT a hack, it is leveraging UTXO design. This was discussed a number of times as packet packet-oriented design with the use of Sub Ids. Again, there is NO value.

[Braqzen]

This is an interesting design mechanism but its design is flawed. There is a comment to use admin restrictions nevertheless it allows for spamming of an asset if somewhere where to go wrong and have the balance altered. This may affect the market.

Your comment makes no sense. The design is not flawed. Admin restrictions only allow a SINGLE user to pause rather than anyone. There cannot be spamming of an asset, when minting may only happen in the case of NO tokens. There is NO market involved.

Moreover, it's really a hack to save costs rather than a solid design. I don't believe in promoting hacks. If this wasn't a security based library then I'd have less of an issue with a hack and some asset potentially being nuked in value so I'd go back to statefulness

This is NOT a hack, it is leveraging UTXO design. This was discussed a number of times as packet packet-oriented design with the use of Sub Ids. Again, there is NO value.

Pause -> mint -> somehow withdraw the balance -> in "paused" but actually unpaused state. Design flaw.
Again, you're wrong. It is a hack. You're minting outside the purpose of a mint. If you could create and destroy something that wouldn't have any value, equivalent to a bool, that would be fine.

[bitzoic]

This is an interesting design mechanism but its design is flawed. There is a comment to use admin restrictions nevertheless it allows for spamming of an asset if somewhere where to go wrong and have the balance altered. This may affect the market.

Your comment makes no sense. The design is not flawed. Admin restrictions only allow a SINGLE user to pause rather than anyone. There cannot be spamming of an asset, when minting may only happen in the case of NO tokens. There is NO market involved.

Moreover, it's really a hack to save costs rather than a solid design. I don't believe in promoting hacks. If this wasn't a security based library then I'd have less of an issue with a hack and some asset potentially being nuked in value so I'd go back to statefulness

This is NOT a hack, it is leveraging UTXO design. This was discussed a number of times as packet packet-oriented design with the use of Sub Ids. Again, there is NO value.

Pause -> mint -> somehow withdraw the balance -> in "paused" but actually unpaused state. Design flaw. Again, you're wrong. It is a hack. You're minting outside the purpose of a mint. If you could create and destroy something that wouldn't have any value, equivalent to a bool, that would be fine.

"somehow withdraw the balance" is an impossible hypothetical situation considering the contract owns the minted asset. Again, the asset has no value.

[Braqzen]

This is an interesting design mechanism but its design is flawed. There is a comment to use admin restrictions nevertheless it allows for spamming of an asset if somewhere where to go wrong and have the balance altered. This may affect the market.

Your comment makes no sense. The design is not flawed. Admin restrictions only allow a SINGLE user to pause rather than anyone. There cannot be spamming of an asset, when minting may only happen in the case of NO tokens. There is NO market involved.

Moreover, it's really a hack to save costs rather than a solid design. I don't believe in promoting hacks. If this wasn't a security based library then I'd have less of an issue with a hack and some asset potentially being nuked in value so I'd go back to statefulness

This is NOT a hack, it is leveraging UTXO design. This was discussed a number of times as packet packet-oriented design with the use of Sub Ids. Again, there is NO value.

Pause -> mint -> somehow withdraw the balance -> in "paused" but actually unpaused state. Design flaw. Again, you're wrong. It is a hack. You're minting outside the purpose of a mint. If you could create and destroy something that wouldn't have any value, equivalent to a bool, that would be fine.

"somehow withdraw the balance" is an impossible hypothetical situation considering the contract owns the minted asset. Again, the asset has no value.

I add the ability to withdraw some asset in some way and get my hands on your specific asset by some exploit.
"Don't do that" is not counter argument. "Just make an unhackable bridge", "Just don't get hacked".

[bitzoic]

Closed in favor of #200