sighash input commitments - WIP #1910
Conversation
| /// `ProduceBlockFromStake`. If the former is consumed, then the pool hasn't staked yet, | ||
| /// so committing to `TxOutput` is enough, which is covered by the `Utxo` case. | ||
| #[codec(index = 2)] | ||
| ProduceBlockFromStakeUtxo { staker_balance: Amount }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say that TxOutput should be here anyway. Imo it's not redundant and is the rule of spending utxos - you have to provide spent output. ProduceBlockFromStake should just have additional requirement (staker's balance).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[discussed] it's probably not a rule when spending utxos in general (e.g. we do commit to TxInput and, therefore, UtxoOutPoint anyway). But in this particular case it's better to commit to the pool id as well, which is in TxOutput. So I'll put TxOutput here too.
| /// For FillOrder we want to commit to the initial balances, which are used to calculate | ||
| /// the exchange ratio in orders V1. | ||
| /// | ||
| /// Note that we do NOT want to commit to the current balances here, because this would make |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'd not only "make them non-commutative" it basically would be incorrect according to the latest price calculation rules.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[discussed] the commitment won't affect price calculation rules, so the comment is ok as is.
ImplOfAnImpl
force-pushed
the
sighash_input_commitments
branch
from
04ad0d1 to
9e5da96
Compare
…iles; tests now use TypeScript
…ruct; parity-scale-codec updated to be able to derive Decode for SighashInputCommitment
ImplOfAnImpl
force-pushed
the
sighash_input_commitments
branch
from
9e5da96 to
a812f72
Compare
…oviders to a separate file
No description provided.