You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
[NEW] What is this issue for
We want to integrate the exit format into nitro-protocol. The current contract API for the latter allows for "per asset" transactions.
The pure functions in this repo currently loop over all assets. This is bad because
we want to allow for finer-grained payouts
it doesn't make sense to specify a single guaranteeIndex for all assets
[Defined] How will we solve it
Assume that we have already drilled into a given asset for both channels. In fact, write (or port) pure functions that operate per-asset called computeNewAllocation and computeNewAllocationsWithGuarantee.
[Development]
[] This ticket has clearly outlined the expected outcome, and I can complete this ticket with no additional refinement
Additional context Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here: notion doc, github discussion or ticket
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
geoknee
changed the title
(nitro-specific) convert claim and transfer to accept an asset index
(nitro-specific) convert claim and transfer to operate at the single asset level
Jul 22, 2021
[NEW] What is this issue for
We want to integrate the exit format into nitro-protocol. The current contract API for the latter allows for "per asset" transactions.
The pure functions in this repo currently loop over all assets. This is bad because
[Defined] How will we solve it
Assume that we have already drilled into a given asset for both channels. In fact, write (or port) pure functions that operate per-asset called
computeNewAllocation
andcomputeNewAllocationsWithGuarantee
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: