CIP-0030 | Adding optional networkId parameter to .enable

[vsubhuman]

To allow dapps optionally to force user to select only compatible network wallets.

See comment here #151 (comment)

[SebastienGllmt]

I definitely agree with this feature. However, I would prefer if we instead used CIP-34 instead of just passing in a network ID otherwise this will cause issues if Cardano ever has >16 network IDs reserved (which is entirely possible in the future). Probably that should be done in parallel to deprecating the getNetworkId and replacing it with something that returns the CIP34 string

[KtorZ]

I second @SebastienGllmt on this 👍 , would be better to avoid "integer blindness".

[mangelsjover]

This is on hold until the governance path can be discussed on CIP 30.

[Ryun1]

Hey @vsubhuman ,

This proposal was discussed today in CIP editors call 68. Are you still interested in pursing this amendment or perhaps there has been a work around discovered? because as it stands I do not think it is advisable to continue to alter CIP-30. Rather I would strongly recommend any more alterations to CIP-30 utilize the extensibility mechanism introduced in #446. This is to avoid the past issues of versioning of CIP-30 for both dApps and wallets, see #446 for discussions.

If this is still an issue with CIP-30 (I believe so as #323 and issue #489 also are similar) I would suggest packaging this in with other CIP-30 amendments (such as #443 and/or maybe #206) to create a multi-functional CIP-30 extension. I mentioned this idea in this issue comment. Would you be willing to pursue something like this?

[Ryun1]

Due to little activity on this proposal and the current state of CIP-30 extensions, I think we can move to close this one @rphair @Crypto2099

[rphair]

Likewise with #323 (comment) (apparent abandonment, the current framework of network identification being "good enough" in practice) and dire need of a rebase), we're closing by quorum unless a current need to reopen is presented.