[poc] DO NOT MERGE: shared account ID is off curve

[s8sato]

Description

• Proof of concept for the new account, with non-essential parts omitted
  • There is room for optimization in actual implementation
• This is in the form of a draft PR just for review and not expected to be merged

Linked issue

• The concept demonstrated here is Add primary key to account #2085 (comment)
• Intended to be one of the foundations for Key-centric accounts  #2083 in general and Reimplement multi-signature #4373 in particular

Benefits

Checklist

• I've read CONTRIBUTING.md
• I've used the standard signed-off commit format (or will squash just before merging)
• All applicable CI checks pass (or I promised to make them pass later)
• (optional) I've written unit tests for the code changes
• I replied to all comments after code review, marking all implemented changes with thumbs up

[mversic]

haha, really suspicious

[mversic]

can we, please, not include shared accounts in this PR?

[s8sato]

This is not a PR, but how multi-signatory account holds its ID will soon become important.
Since this is still intended to be a compliant proposal to the discussion so far, could you be more specific about the issue or provide an alternative?

[s8sato]

I guess you just advised not to preemptively implement shared accounts in the 1st PR. If so, we are on the same page

[0x009922]

If so, this PoC should be entirely re-written? I see the code is mostly about shared accounts.

[s8sato]

No, this PoC is a part of the specification or discussion, and is completely different from the 1st PR.
So this is expected to be closed at some point