msg.sender vs tx.origin on ERC-20 token contract

Question

When using contract calls with an ERC-20 token things get messy. Let me explain:

There are 3 scenarios for token transfers:

1.- User A sends tokens to User B

2.- An ICO contract sends tokens to a buyer

3.- An asset contract sends buyer's tokens to an asset seller

By using the ERC-20 token transfer() method cases 1 and 2 are covered.

function transfer(address _to, uint256 _amount) public returns (bool success) {
    ...
    balances[msg.sender] -= _amount;
    balances[_to] += _amount;
    ...
}

Being msg.sender, User A (case #1) and ICO contract (case #2) the tokens are transferred successfully.

But transfer() method cannot solve case #3, because msg.sender is not the user (having tokens) that sends the transaction, but the asset contract (having no tokens) acting as middle-man.

This third case requires the use of tx.origin instead of msg.sender, so the tokens would came from the user that originates the transaction.

Any idea how to solve the 3 cases preserving the ERC-20 transfer method as unique? Thx!

Refs.:

• What's the difference between 'msg.sender' and 'tx.origin'?

• Specify sender between contract calls

• Overriding ERC-20 methods

Answer 1

I'm a little unsure of what you're asking. Lets take etherdelta for an example "asset contract". Etherdelta acts as a middleman, yes, but to place an order for an ethereum token, you will send ethereum to their contract. So the etherdelta contract itself is actually transferring the tokens to you, and the ethereum to the person who you bought the tokens from.

As you have shown, a middle-man asset contract that doesn't actually access the tokens wouldn't work in this way. Perhaps you could use the approve() and transferFrom() ERC20 functions if you required the asset contract to not touch the tokens.

Here is the ERC20 token standard for reference: https://theethereum.wiki/w/index.php/ERC20_Token_Standard