Joel Thorstensson
Joel Thorstensson
> makes string comparisons for keys possible. Can you elaborate on what this means? Comparing would still work if it's only the first 15 chars of the key?
@OR13 should be safe if you use DID + id?
> not if you use relative ref ids... If you see a relative ref, wouldn't it make sense to concat it with the DID? I would modify 3. above to...
@OR13 how would you feel about a PR that introduces `#0` and `#1` etc for *id*s? The old ids could be kept for backward compatibility. I'm mainly worried about protected...
Note that it would be possible to keep the old `id` around in generated DID documents. Perhaps this could be added as a *Backwards compatibility* note?
Looks like your link is broken. Will this enable `keyAgreement` with BLS? In particular I would be interested in using a BLS did-key as a recipient in a proxy reencryption...
You are right, it's not possible to store the entire ipfs hash in a bytes32 type. An ipfs hash is 34 bytes, you can however strip the first two bytes...
Hey, Could you provide the code you have to replicate this error?
Hm, I have no problem with that. Did you import the registry this way? ```js const regsitryArtifact = require('uport-registry') const Contract = require('truffle-contract') const Registry = Contract(regsitryArtifact) ```
That's strange. However I'm unable to reproduce this error. Is it the call to `registry.set(key, subject, value);` that gives you the promise rejection?