Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature Request: Multisig support #3134

Open
zpetersen-paxos opened this issue Jul 29, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Feature Request: Multisig support #3134

zpetersen-paxos opened this issue Jul 29, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@zpetersen-paxos
Copy link

Hello, it looks like anchor does not support the token program multisig as described here. I see there are some TODOs in the code that are very old.

Is there a workaround to support this? If not can this feature be added?

@zpetersen-paxos zpetersen-paxos changed the title Multisig support Feature Request: Multisig support Jul 29, 2024
@acheroncrypto
Copy link
Collaborator

Correct, the wrappers in anchor-spl don't support spl-token multisigs, but you should be able to just copy the functions you'd like to use from the file you've linked and specify the signers array as a workaround.

@zpetersen-paxos
Copy link
Author

zpetersen-paxos commented Jul 29, 2024

Cool I did that and it's working. To use this in any production grade code though we'd want to avoid this workaround.

I think it wouldn't be too difficult to add, just need a new field in the struct and then reference that. Wdyt?

@acheroncrypto
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't know what the initial reasoning was for not supporting multisigs, but adding a new field for all these wrapper instructions would break pretty much everyone's code.

Given most people don't or won't use this feature (I don't think anyone asked about it before even though these functions are quite popular), it would be better to find a way to add this functionality without causing breakage.

@zpetersen-paxos
Copy link
Author

Ah right struct fields in rust are required. That definitely makes the backwards compatibility a bit trickier. Any suggestions on how this could be achieved?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants