EIP-5289 Discussion: Notary Interface

EIPs
21

I was wondering if there was a use case for saying, for example, documents 1,2 and 3 are associated with all tokens in the collection, and document 4 was a specific agreement for tokenId 1129, and document 5 for tokenId 2971, etc.

This could then support specific legal arrangements that individual token holders have made. I have something along those kind of lines in the delegation extension built on top of EIP-4886, though not with the sophistication of your solution (I just have the ability to hold a URI).

22

Yes, there is! You can have it revert only when the token ID is a specific number if you want.

1 Like
23

Hey, guys, I’m DePONotary founder of an eNotarization StartUp, Software Developer, and US eNotary Public, and I can only provide a personal interpretation of my experience as such because I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE US AND MAY NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE OR ACCEPT FEES FOR LEGAL ADVICE

I am going to endure the task of going through the entire thread and commenting as I make myself through the lot and if any of my comments receive a response, I will respond after I have finished the thread.

24

What exactly makes the Portable Document Format so complex that is so hard to implement a rendering? is it the tampered-evident XML wrap?

25

For one, the most recent standard is managed by ISO and is non-free to access. Second, PDFs can include JavaScript, fillable forms, a multitude of animation and image formats, fonts, and probably a ton of other features I’m neglecting to mention. I would advocate for something simpler and more open as the basis for legal documents in this space.

26

Hello everyone, I’m an IT student and I’m trying implementing this EIP.
I found an issue while compiling the code, as the function documentSignedAt() returns the timestamp value in a uint64 variable.
In the contract, i tried to store data of the Documents in this struct

struct Document {
        address signer;        
        uint64 timestamp;
        string ipfsuri;
    }

The field timestamp is initialized with bock.timestamp every time an address signs a document,
however block.timestamp is a uint256-type, therefore the compiler rejects casting from uint256 to uint64.

Is this made on purpose? Am i doing something wrong?
Thank you everyone

27

Yes, to save storage.