Skip to content

Conversation

@pxrl
Copy link
Contributor

@pxrl pxrl commented Feb 5, 2024

This is another case of a variable being missed when the naming was changed. The data availability layer isn't bound to IPFS and will probably be something else anyway. This is within the scope of the UMIP, the contracts don't need to be specific about the underlying technology that is used.

This is another case of a variable being missed when the naming was
changed. The data availability layer isn't bound to IPFS and will
probably be something else anyway. This is within the scope of the UMIP,
the contracts don't need to be specific about the underlying technology
that is used.
@pxrl pxrl requested a review from nicholaspai February 5, 2024 04:39
@pxrl pxrl merged commit 8f5b638 into master Feb 5, 2024
@pxrl pxrl deleted the pxrl/fillsRefundedHash branch February 5, 2024 12:40
pxrl added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2024
This is another case of a variable being missed when the naming was
changed. The data availability layer isn't bound to IPFS and will
probably be something else anyway. This is within the scope of the UMIP,
the contracts don't need to be specific about the underlying technology
that is used.
pxrl added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2024
This is another case of a variable being missed when the naming was 
changed. The data availability layer isn't bound to IPFS and will
probably be something else anyway. This is within the scope of the UMIP,
the contracts don't need to be specific about the underlying technology
that is used.
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.

3 participants