Integrating with 3box or similar way of storing data about unilogin HOT 36 OPEN

Glad to hear that you have looked into our project @alexvandesande 🙂
Right now 3box requires a regular ethereum account to create the db for a user. Universal login and multi-device support is something that we definitely want to support though. Let's catch up at devcon and explore how to get this working!

from unilogin.

@santteegt I see you were interested in this bounty a while back. We're working on a spec internally for how this could be accomplished. @oed has broken it down into 2 parts. Basically, 1) link a 3Box account (DID) to a contract wallet, and 2) add multiple authentication methods to 3Box (multiple device/signing keys). It requires a new identity system that we're currently working on.

@oed feel free to weigh in more here, should we close the bounty or can someone use the specs and new 3ID system you're working on to do the integration?

It's probably significantly less work now with all these specs though.

from unilogin.

Hey @alexvandesande, as @oed mentioned we'd love to get these two projects working nicely together! I'm going to contribute additional ETH to this bounty to see if we can help you get the community thinking about this!

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

Work has been started.

These users each claimed they can complete the work by 4 months, 4 weeks from now.
Please review their action plans below:

1) cppdevcrypto has been approved to start work.

Hey there,

Sounds like a interesting project i would be happy to help out.

Thanks,

Mat

Learn more on the Gitcoin Issue Details page.

from unilogin.

from unilogin.

I've been doing research around identity and both 3box and this project seem very interesting. Would be awesome to integrate the two. Especially as 3box 1.0 has been released. I'm available on standby to work on this. 😃

from unilogin.

@tyleryasaka @CPPDevCrypto Nice 😄
We have a research thread going on here: 3box/3box#251

from unilogin.

Hey @ChrisCates how are things going on this, was your PR accepted? If it was or if you're still working on this could you apply to start work?

from unilogin.

is this bounty still open?

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

This issue now has a funding of 1.7 ETH (384.21 USD @ $226.01/ETH) attached to it as part of the Ethereum Foundation fund__.__

• If you would like to work on this issue you can 'start work' on the Gitcoin Issue Details page.
• Want to chip in? Add your own contribution here.
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
• $40,399.80 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

from unilogin.

Right now 3box requires a regular ethereum account to create the db for a user

To be clear, universal logins DOES have regular ethereum accounts that are able to sign messages via ether.js. The only difference here is that we separate the accounts that are able to sign from the one contract account that holds funds. So if a user has a login and has 3 keys in separate apps/devices that are able to sign, then we'll have 3 different databases that will constantly send messages to each other with new updated information.

I don't know if the sign message standard allows you to sign things with someone's else's public key, so that it can only be read by them, so we need that. And we would need a decentralized "whisper"-like service that allows keys to send messages addresses to each other—but that's something we'll need anyway if we want users to talk to each others privately.

from unilogin.

then we'll have 3 different databases that will constantly send messages to each other with new updated information.

Yeah, we need to explore different ways of allowing a 3box to be owned by multiple keys.

we would need a decentralized "whisper"-like service that allows keys to send messages addresses to each other

Have you looked into ipfs pubsub? It works really well when you are connected to the right peers, but it does require you to run an ipfs node in the browser. Peering isn't working very well yet though, but I think it's fine if you both are using the same boot nodes. Might be worth exploring for you at least 🙂 (We are using it internally in 3box)

from unilogin.

from unilogin.

Oh, yes that's an interesting concept. Requires some more work on the 3box library side to support multiple dbs in one interface though.
What I was referring to is more like multiple keys having commit access to the same repo. Since orbit-db uses a CRDT "forks" will automatically get "merged" into the same data structure.

from unilogin.

@CPPDevCrypto thanks for picking this bounty up! If you have any questions about 3Box, you can ask them on this thread or in the 3Box discord. We're happy to help and please let us know if anything isn't working perfectly 👍

from unilogin.

@CPPDevCrypto Hello from Gitcoin Core - are you still working on this issue? Please submit a WIP PR or comment back within the next 3 days or you will be removed from this ticket and it will be returned to an ‘Open’ status. Please let us know if you have questions!

• warning (3 days)
• escalation to mods (6 days)

Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

@CPPDevCrypto due to inactivity, we have escalated this issue to Gitcoin's moderation team. Let us know if you believe this has been done in error!

• warning (3 days)
• escalation to mods (6 days)

Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days

from unilogin.

Hey @CPPDevCrypto, Ryan from Gitcoin here. Checking in on this issue. Are you still working on it? Can I help in any way? Let me know if you have any questions 😄 🌐

from unilogin.

from unilogin.

@CPPDevCrypto Hello from Gitcoin Core - are you still working on this issue? Please submit a WIP PR or comment back within the next 3 days or you will be removed from this ticket and it will be returned to an ‘Open’ status. Please let us know if you have questions!

• warning (3 days)
• escalation to mods (6 days)

Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

@CPPDevCrypto due to inactivity, we have escalated this issue to Gitcoin's moderation team. Let us know if you believe this has been done in error!

• warning (3 days)
• escalation to mods (6 days)

Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days

from unilogin.

@CPPDevCrypto Hello from Gitcoin Core - are you still working on this issue? Please submit a WIP PR or comment back within the next 3 days or you will be removed from this ticket and it will be returned to an ‘Open’ status. Please let us know if you have questions!

• warning (3 days)
• escalation to mods (6 days)

Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

@CPPDevCrypto due to inactivity, we have escalated this issue to Gitcoin's moderation team. Let us know if you believe this has been done in error!

• reminder (3 days)
• escalation to mods (6 days)

Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days

from unilogin.

Hey @CPPDevCrypto unfortunately if we don't hear back by end of day tomorrow we'll have to give this issue back to the crowd, are you able to update us on your progress?

from unilogin.

I've sent in a PR for review.
Seems like there are some issues with ipfs-mini and 3box when connecting to infura.io

#145

from unilogin.

Here are some reference PR/Issues from the 3box source libraries, to keep up to date on what I'm doing.

3box/3box-pinning-node#21

3box/3box-address-server#42

from unilogin.

@ChrisCates May I ask why you want to run your own instance of the address server? I get that it sucks that it's a centralized component (I agree), but running a separate instance would basically split the 3box profile network in two. I guess that could be fine depending on the use case. However I'd like to understand what your needs are 🙂

from unilogin.

@oed this is purely for testing purposes.

By no means would I intend on using this in production.

It's not that much extra legwork to port the requests to an express server and then make it accessible via command line.

from unilogin.

I am probably going to close that issue though since it's essentially redundant since they intend on upgrading it to a decentralized solution that can run locally (or distributed).

from unilogin.

@ChrisCates I see, thanks for clarifying! :D

from unilogin.

hey @ChrisCates, any updates on this one?

from unilogin.

from unilogin.

@alexvandesande it looks interesting and useful at the same time, i'd like to finish this one.
I am not able to apply through gitcoin as @CPPDevCrypto is still assigned to this task.
Let me know if it's up for grabs :)

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

This Bounty has been completed.

• Learn more on the Gitcoin Issue Details page
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
• $89,466.60 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

from unilogin.

Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done

This Bounty has been completed.

• Learn more on the Gitcoin Issue Details page
• Questions? Checkout Gitcoin Help or the Gitcoin Slack
• $89,466.60 more funded OSS Work available on the Gitcoin Issue Explorer

from unilogin.

Anyone is involved in the issue?

from unilogin.