OpenZeppelin
ERC20Burnable: Description needs correction
The description states that the ERC20Burnable extension makes it possible for token holders to destroy others' tokens, which is incorrect:
Extension of ERC20 that allows token holders to destroy both their own tokens and those that they have an allowance for, in a way that can be recognized off-chain (via event analysis).
Here's a corrected description: Extension of ERC20 that allows token holders to destroy their own tokens or allow other particular accounts or contracts to destroy tokens that the holder had granted an allowance for, in a way that can be recognized off-chain (via event analysis).
Hello @SKYBITDev3
I don't see what is wrong with the current description. I look correct to me. IMO the proposed "corrected description" is less clear.
@ernestognw ?
I think it's currently clear as it states that it "allows token holders to destroy both: a) their own tokens and b) those they have allowance for". The new one is perhaps more explicit but isn't changing the meaning imo.
Having burnFrom in a token that you hold makes it possible for others to burn your tokens if you give an allowance to them.
It makes much more sense to state that the token holder can allow others to burn his tokens, instead of stating that the token holder can burn others' tokens.
instead of stating that the token holder can burn others' tokens.
This is not what the docs state. It states that anyone can burn tokens they have an allowance for. Your proposal feels something like "allow other's to have allowance".
instead of stating that the token holder can burn others' tokens.
This is not what the docs state
Yes it does. The statement "allows token holders to destroy both their own tokens and those that they have an allowance for" is the same as the combination of these two statements: "allows token holders to destroy their own tokens" "allows token holders to destroy tokens that they have an allowance for", which means other holders' tokens, as own tokens are covered by the first statement.
It's the frames of reference that is the issue here, i.e. who's the holder and who's the burner.
With burn, the holder is the burner;
With burnFrom, any account or contract is the burner, if the token holder had given allowances to spend his tokens beforehand to those accounts or contracts, regardless of whether those accounts or contracts are holders of the tokens. The published description doesn't make this clear, as it just says token holders are the burners for both burn and burnFrom.
So you should make it clear thatburnFrom makes it possible for any account or contract to burn a holder's tokens if that holder gives an allowance beforehand, even if those accounts or contracts don't hold any of the tokens.
So you should make it clear that
burnFrommakes it possible for any account or contract to burn a holder's tokens if that holder gives an allowance beforehand, even if those accounts or contracts don't hold any of the tokens.
This is the case even without burnForm, because any account that has allowance can use transferFrom to get full ownership, and then burn that.
Again, I think the documentation is very clear that this it is possible to burn tokens you have allowance for.
Extension of {ERC20} that allows token holders to destroy both their own tokens and those that they have an allowance for.
This is the case even without
burnForm, because any account that has allowance can usetransferFromto get full ownership, and then burn that.
Yes, I know that, burnForm is just a specialized version of transferFrom. That's not the issue.
The currently published statement "allows token holders to destroy both their own tokens and those that they have an allowance for" is the same as saying the following 2 statements:
- allows token holders to destroy their own tokens
- allows token holders to destroy others' tokens that they have an allowance for
Even though the statements aren't wrong, they fail to include this very important statement: allows non- token holders to destroy others' tokens that they have an allowance for
My point is that burnForm should not only be about a token holder doing any burning, but that's what the published description only covers. i.e. the frame of reference is fixated only on the token holder doing burning.
Having burnForm makes it possible for anyone else (or any contract), even if they don't hold any of the tokens, to burn an amount of tokens that the token holder had given an allowance for (via approve or a signature for use with permit) to the burner.
Similarly and more generally, having transferForm makes it possible for anyone else (or any contract), even if they don't hold any of the tokens, to transfer an amount of tokens that the token holder had given an allowance for (via approve or a signature for use with permit) to the transferer.