Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Consider splitting concerns of static calls #26

Open
cwgoes opened this issue Mar 13, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Consider splitting concerns of static calls #26

cwgoes opened this issue Mar 13, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Mar 13, 2020 •
edited
Loading

General concern about calls happening before static checks.

  • Authenticate call data
  • Return fill
  • Check state changes
  • Call gets signed? Maybe an option.

Other points

  • If maker == sender, do we need a static call at all? Then we could avoid anyXYZ contracts.
  • Orders could optionally sign some hash of calldata
  • Maybe an application-operator-specific whitelist (application operator could change)
@cwgoes cwgoes self-assigned this Mar 13, 2020
@cwgoes cwgoes removed their assignment Jun 12, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@cwgoes