George Danezis

Ack. Reflecting on it.

Here is a corner case, that worries me: - Say we have a quasi-shared object X owned by shared object S. - We make a transaction T1 that includes a...

Some follow-up thoughts: - I think that to ensure clear invariant it is easier for an owned object to be an owned object or quasi-owned object, and for shared objects...

> To transfer an object to S, S must be passed as a parameter. Aha, I was missing this indeed. So to transfer an object's ownerwhip X to another object...

So I have a followup question: For the case where both X and Y are owned objects, is it also the case a transaction that assigns ownership of Y to...

> I'm not sure code comments are the right place to document the sui-protocol-level requirements that George is highlighting, since relaxing any specific storage components to eventual consistency would likely...

Quick Q: should we version the whitepaper? Say starting here at v0.1, and aiming for v1.0 to be mainnet? Ideally we would extend the whitepaper with more details on testnet...

Node, this issue is less urgent since: - the client can always retry and this will succeed. - right now each validator always re-sequences which means that it should receive...

Also note: it is v possible that the listener and waiter are processed after even our own message is sequenced, and also the listener does not return if locks already...

Many thanks for your bug report. We are looking into it.