Skip to content

specs: draft solidarity extension (owner-consented share to a humanitarian fund) - #419

Draft
craigm26 wants to merge 1 commit into
coinbase:mainfrom
craigm26:spec-solidarity-extension
Draft

craigm26 wants to merge 1 commit into
coinbase:mainfrom
craigm26:spec-solidarity-extension

Conversation

@craigm26

@craigm26 craigm26 commented Oct 22, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description

Draft extension for discussion: solidarity lets a client attach a separately authorized share, at a rate its owner agreed to in advance, to an allow-listed humanitarian fund.

  • Resource server is unaffected and never pays the share.
  • Facilitators that support it list solidarity in /supported, settle the share apart from the purchase (a failed share never changes the purchase result), and report via EXTENSION-RESPONSES.
  • Facilitators publish monthly RFC 6962 Merkle batches so owners can verify inclusion.

Open question for maintainers (in the doc): the share is the buyer's choice, so the server does not advertise it. Is a client adding an extension the server did not advertise, when the facilitator supports it, compatible with the v2 extension rules, or does that need a clarification?

Reference checker (Python stdlib), simulated ledger and allocation rule: https://craigmerry.com/solidarity-levy/

Drafted with Claude Code; I have read and reviewed the text. Opening as a draft for feedback before anyone spends review time on it.

Tests

Docs only. The Merkle construction in the doc reproduces the RFC 6962 reference vectors in both reference implementations (verify.py --selftest, merkle.js).

Checklist

  • I have formatted and linted my code
  • All new and existing tests pass
  • My commits are signed (required for merge)
  • I added a changelog fragment for user-facing changes (docs-only changes can skip)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01HVfVKz85T7urVZ6JnZ3A3E

@cb-heimdall

cb-heimdall commented Oct 22, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🟡 Heimdall Review Status

Requirement Status More Info
Reviews 🟡 0/1
Denominator calculation
Show calculation
1 if user is bot 0
1 if user is external 0
2 if repo is sensitive 0
From .codeflow.yml 1
Additional review requirements
Show calculation
Max 0
0
From CODEOWNERS 0
Global minimum 0
Max 1
1
1 if commit is unverified 0
Sum 1

@github-actions github-actions Bot added specs unverified Pull request contains unverified commits labels Oct 22, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thanks for your contribution @craigm26!
Note that we require commit signing, please rebase and verify your commits.

See here for instructions: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-signature-verification/about-commit-signature-verification

The team will not review this PR before ALL commits have been verified and it will be closed after 1 week of inactivity.

Unverified commits:

  • 0e01f62: unsigned

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants