SNIP-86: Sign-in-with-Starknet Standard

[0xYudhishthra]

Long messages can now be signed with this new standard using the Poseidon hash 🎉

The current SIWS standard introduces a lot of limitations when signing messages by enforcing a 31-char limit on the StarknetDomain and Message fields. This proposal suggests the removal of this limitation to allow for more flexibility in the use of the SIWS standard and increase adoption of the new standard for more dApps built on Starknet.

[JorikSchellekens]

Note: We are reworking the intro to this SNIP to be stand-alone instead of referencing the previous, closed pull request.

[0xYudhishthra]

Long messages can now be signed with this new standard using the Poseidon hash 🎉

The current SIWS standard introduces a lot of limitations when signing messages by enforcing a 31-char limit on the StarknetDomain and Message fields. This proposal suggests the removal of this limitation to allow for more flexibility in the use of the SIWS standard and increase adoption of the new standard for more dApps built on Starknet.

Made updates to this SNIP to be stand-alone and removed references to previous SNIPs, included detailed spec and implementation details for added context

[dor-starkware]

Hi @0xYudhishthra ,

Thank you for your submission of SNIP-86. To comply fully with SNIP-1 guidelines, please address the following:

Rationale: Include a section that describes the reasons for specific design choices and any alternatives that were considered.

Backwards Compatibility: Add a section that discusses any backward compatibility issues, even if there are none.

Security Considerations: While security aspects are discussed, please add a clearly labeled section titled "Security Considerations."

Once these changes are made, we can proceed further with the review process.

[Eikix]

Adding an update here @0xYudhishthra, I think I added comments too fast! I might have misunderstood how JSON schemas work. Apologies (can't resolve my comments)

[0xYudhishthra]

Adding an update here @0xYudhishthra, I think I added comments too fast! I might have misunderstood how JSON schemas work. Apologies (can't resolve my comments)

Hey @Eikix, no worries on that! Could you please let me know which comments you'd like resolved, so I know which ones to take a second look at? (just mention the comments in the numeric order, e.g. 1,2,3... I'll help resolve it)

[Eikix]

Adding an update here @0xYudhishthra, I think I added comments too fast! I might have misunderstood how JSON schemas work. Apologies (can't resolve my comments)

Hey @Eikix, no worries on that! Could you please let me know which comments you'd like resolved, so I know which ones to take a second look at? (just mention the comments in the numeric order, e.g. 1,2,3... I'll help resolve it)

Ok now that I'm a SNIP maintainer, I could resolve comments! I deleted the comments that I don't think have value.

[0xYudhishthra]

Hi @0xYudhishthra ,

Thank you for your submission of SNIP-86. To comply fully with SNIP-1 guidelines, please address the following:

Rationale: Include a section that describes the reasons for specific design choices and any alternatives that were considered.

Backwards Compatibility: Add a section that discusses any backward compatibility issues, even if there are none.

Security Considerations: While security aspects are discussed, please add a clearly labeled section titled "Security Considerations."

Once these changes are made, we can proceed further with the review process.

Hey @dor-starkware, I've included these sections...hope it's in order!

[github-actions[bot]]

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale. This PR will be closed and locked in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions!