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 implications of using "GemPermit" instead of given name in permit typehash #45

Closed
nmushegian opened this issue Dec 11, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

consider implications of using "GemPermit" instead of given name in permit typehash #45

nmushegian opened this issue Dec 11, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@nmushegian
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@nmushegian
Copy link
Contributor Author

#57

@nmushegian
Copy link
Contributor Author

Pretty sure having immutable domain separator means each gem's code hash will be different, is probably not desirable. These names are self-given and so meaningless, showing them to the user as something to sign might cause more harm than good

@nmushegian
Copy link
Contributor Author

Domain separator / typehash already causes different code b/c it includes verifyingContract. So the other concern wins out and we will keep GemPermit

@nmushegian nmushegian mentioned this issue Jan 11, 2022
Closed
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
@nmushegian