Skip to content

Add Aptos namespace#169

Open
jtang17 wants to merge 3 commits intoChainAgnostic:mainfrom
aptos-labs:main
Open

Add Aptos namespace#169
jtang17 wants to merge 3 commits intoChainAgnostic:mainfrom
aptos-labs:main

Conversation

@jtang17
Copy link

@jtang17 jtang17 commented Jan 20, 2026

Add Aptos namespace

This PR introduces the Aptos namespace to the ChainAgnostic namespaces registry.

Added Files

  • aptos/README.md - Namespace profile for the Aptos ecosystem
  • aptos/caip2.md - CAIP-2 chain identification specification for Aptos

Summary

Aptos is a Layer 1 blockchain built on Move, featuring parallel execution via Block-STM for high throughput. This PR establishes the aptos namespace for identifying Aptos-based chains.

Chain Identification (CAIP-2)

Chains in the Aptos namespace are identified by their numeric chain_id, which is assigned at genesis and requires no transformation to be used as a CAIP-2 reference.

Network Chain ID CAIP-2 Identifier
Mainnet 1 aptos:1
Testnet 2 aptos:2

Resolution

Chain IDs can be resolved by querying the REST API of any Aptos fullnode:

curl https://fullnode.mainnet.aptoslabs.com/v1The chain_id field in the response provides the identifier.

References

@jtang17 jtang17 force-pushed the main branch 2 times, most recently from 8c2d6e1 to 89bcee8 Compare January 20, 2026 22:26

## Rationale

In CAIP-2 a general blockchain identification scheme is defined. This is the
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
In CAIP-2 a general blockchain identification scheme is defined. This is the
In [CAIP-2] a general blockchain identification scheme is defined. This is the

In CAIP-2 a general blockchain identification scheme is defined. This is the
implementation of CAIP-2 for Aptos. Blockchains in the "aptos" namespace are
identified by their numeric `chain_id`, assigned at genesis. Each network is
maintained by a set of validators with its own REST API endpoints. These chain
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

are the endpoints heterogeneous or do they all have (only) a shared set of endpoints and semantics? do they change over time? where do you find them? these are useful things to add if there are long-lived URLs explaining them.


## Syntax

The namespace "aptos" refers to the Aptos open-source blockchain platform.
Copy link
Collaborator

@bumblefudge bumblefudge Feb 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a maximum length (in digits or in bytes), or a maximum integer value? is 0 a valid chainId? are negative chainid's allowed?

### Reference Definition

The definition for this namespace will use the `chain_id` as an identifier
for different Aptos chains. The chain ID is a positive integer assigned at
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

assigned how and by whom? is there a conflict resolution mechanism?

Copy link
Collaborator

@bumblefudge bumblefudge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this could be merged as-is because it's a pretty straight-forward chainId system, but the clarifying questions I left would all be worth answering if they can be dispensed by adding a sentence and/or a link each! I recommend doing so because these profiles serve as a kind of onboarding resource for devs new the space, and avoid cross-chain footguns firing off because of faulty assumptions about the underlying semantics or mechanics of network identification/resolution systems.

Copy link
Contributor

@obstropolos obstropolos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Check out prior comments, but approving here

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants