# Existing enigma code base

**URL:** <https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309>\
**Category:** Secret Network\
**Created:** [February 21, 2020, 8:19am UTC](https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309 "2020-02-21T08:19:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![r4g](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/96bed5/32.png) [@r4g](https://forum.scrt.network/u/r4g)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2020, 8:19am UTC](https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309/1 "2020-02-21T08:19:06Z")

</div>

How much of the existing enigma code base is usable on the new chain?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Derek](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/forum.scrt.network/derek/32/402_2.png) [@Derek](https://forum.scrt.network/u/Derek)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2020, 12:27pm UTC](https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309/2 "2020-02-21T12:27:18Z")

</div>

It’s unknown at this point. The Enigma team is trying to determine what to scrap/rewrite. See this post for more info.

> [@(Dev discussion/Issue) WASM implementation](https://forum.scrt.network/t/dev-discussion-issue-wasm-implementation/1303/7):
>
> Why not just write it as a dsl that compiles down to rust, with a choice whether to use the dsl compiler? Fully backwards compatible but allows improvement

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![r4g](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/96bed5/32.png) [@r4g](https://forum.scrt.network/u/r4g)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2020, 3:42pm UTC](https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309/3 "2020-02-21T15:42:58Z")

</div>

if it is really unknown switching to a new chain must have been a sudden decision. You would think there would be some sort of road map for what needs to be done and what’s reusable from the last attempt.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Derek](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/forum.scrt.network/derek/32/402_2.png) [@Derek](https://forum.scrt.network/u/Derek)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2020, 3:45pm UTC](https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309/4 "2020-02-21T15:45:03Z")

</div>

The SEC ruling threw wrench into everything that’s for sure.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![guy](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/forum.scrt.network/guy/32/56_2.png) [@guy](https://forum.scrt.network/u/guy)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2020, 6:01pm UTC](https://forum.scrt.network/t/existing-enigma-code-base/1309/5 "2020-02-21T18:01:38Z")

</div>

enigma-p2p is not needed. Parts of the key management node are needed, but we are removing that piece (which was centralized anyway and we’re committed to not having any centralized pieces in the new network, which is already decentralized).

Everything SGX and secret contract related is needed, but we can’t just take the entire code-base in, because things need to be ported to fit in (to work well with our native chain).

Upside is that supporting multiple chains and not just Ethereum would be easier.