FIP-0044: Verifreg: Consider modifying RemoveDataCapProposal about fips

[arajasek]

Opened a draft PR specing out the proposed change just for clarity, but we're late enough in the game that I don't actually want this change anymore.

[dkkapur]

@arajasek would love to understand this more, what should I look at / read to get a better handle on consequences of a new design?

[arajasek]

@dkkapur Sorry about the very delayed response here!

Short answer: no consequences, it isn't a new design at all.

Long answer: FIP-0044 adds a new way for actors to validate signatures. In addition to the validate_signature syscall (which is what the verifreg uses today), there is a new method called AuthenticateMessage that actors can choose to implement -- currently only the account actor does so.

The verified registry can thus either continue to call validate_signature, or instead start invoking the new AuthenticateMessage method. The difference is immaterial today, except that calls to RemoveVerifiedClientDataCap might cost slightly more gas. The long-term impact is that with the FVM, it would become possible for this method to be called by contracts (thus, it would be one step towards having programmatic verifiers if we so wanted).

Truthfully, my motivation is more around code cleanliness -- I'd rather unify around the "new" way to authenticate signatures than have two. Should be no impact at all to the UX of verifiers.

[dkkapur]

@arajasek thanks! sounds like we don't need to change anything on the tooling front today and can hopefully leverage this with FVM easier in the future! appreciate the explanation!