trgarrett
trgarrett
@Yakuhito graciously donated some of his time to look over things. I am looking at the following items from his review. **List of pairs length check** ``` When you do...
You're assuming the royalties are only owed to the creators on a best effort basis. Fraud is theft. Theft is a security issue. > The only note I have here...
Withdrawing this CHIP submission.
Given chia-blockchain contains both a blockchain, which I am not claiming is itself failing here, and what amounts to user-defined smart coins (and CNI is only a special user in...
> I would still be surprised if we've seen a substantial number of instances of royalty circumvention in the wild. I actually agree with this. I may be a bearish...
> Every mempool item (transaction) should be valid on its own without any other mempool items being included at the same time. They should also not become invalid by nature...
> My main comment at this point is that while the CHIP clearly spells out the problem, the proposed solutions currently use words/phrases like _could_, _should_, _at the discretion_, etc....
How is the burn address meant to interact with revocation? It seems I could potentially make a token appear as burned (as interpreted by a block explorer) and then undo...
> > burn > > Good point -- "burn" is incompatible with revocable CATs. They can, however, be melted, and that is permanent. I'd like to see more clarification around...
@Rigidity Everything you've said is correct, but it doesn't take away from the concern that most of this behavior is brand new and needs to be understood by the user...