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

Separate keys for signing consensus messages and transactions #62

Closed
defuz opened this issue Apr 25, 2017 · 1 comment · Fixed by #113
Closed

Separate keys for signing consensus messages and transactions #62

defuz opened this issue Apr 25, 2017 · 1 comment · Fixed by #113
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@defuz
Copy link
Contributor

defuz commented Apr 25, 2017

No description provided.

@dj8yfo
Copy link
Contributor

dj8yfo commented May 19, 2017

@slowli @defuz

I see this useful only with respect to exonum/cryptocurrency#5 or (alternatively) #118.
Otherwise, don't understand what practical goal implementation of this is gonna fulfill now.

The separate maintainer's public key, stored within service, could be used to authenticate transactions either via http-signatures or via separate exonum-binary-format signing utility.

slowli added a commit to exonum/exonum-doc that referenced this issue Jul 21, 2017
Improve configuration article:

- Remove Sample Configuration File section. Link to sample file in Exonum tests instead.
- Update keys description according to exonum/exonum#62
- Describe [whitelist] section
- Describe [mempool] section
- Describe [services_configs] section
- Describe external_address parameter
- Describe state_update_timeout parameter
stanislav-tkach pushed a commit to stanislav-tkach/exonum that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018
stanislav-tkach added a commit to stanislav-tkach/exonum that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018
Add cargo-deadlinks check into Travis script
stanislav-tkach pushed a commit to stanislav-tkach/exonum that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants