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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Backend spec #2
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Backend spec #2
Changes from 1 commit
2c8638e
6dfce29
37cc040
b102d8d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Currently a phonon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suppose that for purposes of this document I'd rather add a little extra to distinguish between a phonon in-transit and a phonon at rest. I think I'll leave it the way it is, and when we get more to polishing it, I'll add an
(in transit)
to the ones not currently held in a card.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is arbitrary restriction that makes little sense. It is essentially equal to sending to a "verified" card and the receiver either redeeming the phonon (key will be known) or throwing the card away (key is lost). The recommendation here is that a client SHOULD verify the receiver (possibly against a blacklist/reputation list etc)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i disagree. phonons cant be sent to non-phonon hardware, and must be verifies prior to sending. that said, if we allow unverified sending, then redeeming a phonon is as simple as encrypting the private keys to an unverified key owned by the client computer, and removes a little complexity around redemption and deletion...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Verified by a client - yes. Verified by the card - not sure.
Redeeming via encryption against user-specified key would be very beneficial (if I kept my keys in some other system, capable of receiving them "securely")
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yea I think I agree that this is not a card level restriction. I think the constraint is actually the other way around?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I agree Dan's 3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.