Audit review #32
Open
Audit review #32
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
H-1. Fixed.
H-2. For the present moment this approach has been accepted. That is, when opening a session, the user can choose where the payment to the provider will come from, either from his stake (direct MOR payment) or from the compute pool. Correct me if something is wrong. Without changes.
M-1. Fixed.
L-1. Fixed.
L-2. That's a good idea. But then the provider would need to call this function every time. I don't know how much it will fit into the overall implementation. Both user and provider will get penalties in case of early closure with a dispute. In turn, if the closing is later, in case of a dispute, we do not record statistics, there are no penalties within the contract. Without changes.
I-1. Yes, we're aware of that. There are plans to pass this data using the backend, but it will not protect much against attackers. Perhaps a validation layer will be added in the future. Without changes.
I-2. Yes, it was in the code, I think this functionality will be extended later, that's why they left it in. Without changes.
I-3. Fixed.