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.

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

Several small spec changes for audits #2341

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jun 21, 2021
Merged

Conversation

JaredCorduan
Copy link
Contributor

@JaredCorduan JaredCorduan commented Jun 16, 2021

Addressing:

#2122 - renaming deposits to deposited to match code, renaming ups and pups in UTxOState to ppup to match code.
#2131 - rename moveRewards -> credCoinMap, use union override left and swap arguments to match code
#2174 - stakeDistr typo with stake address (reward mapping keys are not inside the stake address constructor)

Also, I found and fix something else that I found in the processes:

  • Remove all references to decaying deposits & exponentiation. I also removed the non-integral section, which is no longer needed (and had fallen quite out of date). The only remaining non-integral computation is the one used in the leader check, which already has its own section.

edit: and another one - allow the pool influence parameter (a0) to be zero.

Jared Corduan added 5 commits June 16, 2021 16:09
(to match the code)
See github issue #2122
We also remove the non-integral section, which is no longer needed. The
only remaing non-integral computation is the one used in the leader
check, but there is still a section for that calculation.
for the variables of type PPUpdateState, to be consistent with the code
See github issue #2122
rename moveRewards -> credCoinMap
use union override left and swap arguments
See github issue #2131
The reward mapping does not have keys that are wrapped in the stake
address constructor.

See github issue #2174
Copy link
Contributor

@polinavino polinavino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants