-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 649
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
BSIP 40: Tests of special custom authorities #2081
Conversation
vector<restriction>{restriction(asset_id_index, FUNC(eq), | ||
asset_id_type( | ||
bcoin2.id.instance()))})}; | ||
restriction sell_bcoin_rx = restriction(dummy_index, FUNC(logical_or), |
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.
Maybe replace one of the logical_or
with a list in
function?
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 was a very good suggestion Peter. By using the in
function, the full set of pairs could be combined and only consume 9 restrictions with almost limitless assets on either side of the permitted exchange sets.
Another benefit is that 9 restrictions is less than the likely 10 restriction limit per custom authority which means that the restricted trading can be described by one custom authority rather than 2 custom authorities.
Created #2082 for documenting the weaknesses. |
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.
Looks good, thanks!
Tests to confirm new custom authority templates for restricted trading, for voting, and for changing a witness signing key