You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, when we sign a record using CO2.Storage the CID of the record pops up in Metamask. Are we signing the record or signing the CID of the record?
Benefits to signing the record directly instead of the CID:
It would be more transparent to the end user what they are signing
It's simpler from a data model perspective to go (record -> signature) instead of (record -> CID -> signature)
Is it important to sign the CID of the record instead of the record itself? One benefit is that the CID is fixed length (and almost always shorter than the actual data) which probably makes it computationally faster?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, when we sign a record using CO2.Storage the CID of the record pops up in Metamask. Are we signing the record or signing the CID of the record?
Benefits to signing the record directly instead of the CID:
Is it important to sign the CID of the record instead of the record itself? One benefit is that the CID is fixed length (and almost always shorter than the actual data) which probably makes it computationally faster?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: