I got an idea to create an address shielder to accept SNIP-20/25 tokens, after a discussion with @SecretSaturn on ETHRome I decided to publish it, I would like to start a discussion for this potential upgrade.
One of the problems of receiving SNIP-20/25 tokens is the visibility of the receiver’s address by the sender, this can lead to the disclosure of certain sensitive information ( such as the number of SCRTs stacked, participation in governance, … )
The goal is to eliminate this problem by sharing an encrypted address that can only be decrypted inside the contract, so the sender never knows what address the tokens ( e.g. sSCRT ) are sent to.
My original concept ( I will be glad if it will be extended ) was to create a standardized decryption key ( for decentralization it can be generated by SecretVRF ) which will be used to decrypt the recipient’s address, the encryption key will then be public and will be used to encrypt the classical secret1… address ( encryption will be done by the recipient )
What if my shielded address is linked to the real one?
By creating a standardized public encryption key, we can ensure that the recipient will not be forced to pay gas.
The problem of a single standardized encryption key can be a potential doxx, the solution to this problem can be either to add the ability to generate the encryption and decryption key itself ( you have to pay gas ), the other option is to create multiple pairs of encryption and decryption keys ( gas-less ) which the frontends could randomly select.
Each SNIP-20/25 would have to be upgraded to support the address shielder
Need to ensure that each SNIP uses the same decryption key, otherwise the receiver would have to share a different address for each asset
There will be a problem with implementation in wallets ( it is very unlikely that wallets like Keplr will ever add support for this solution )
The decryption process will make it slightly more expensive to send tokens
Q: Is the goal to eliminate sending to classic addresses?
A: No, the goal is to add another option for accepting payments
Q: Will every SNIP automatically support Address Shielder
A: No, every SNIP that wants to add support will be forced to upgrade their contract
Q: Will Address Shielder protect the sender
A: No, the sender will still be doxxable ( this problem would be hard to solve, because TX is sending onchain at a given time )
I will be glad for comments, opinions, improvements, …, and support from SLabs.
Have a good discussion