taler/exchange
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

typo

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Florian Dold 2017-05-17 15:23:26 +02:00
parent 838438e95d
commit 14cf795955
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: D2E4F00F29D02A4B
2 changed files with 11 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
doc/paper/taler.tex
View File

@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ key reasons for DigiCash's failure include:
\item % In addition to the risk of legal disputes wh fraudulent \item % In addition to the risk of legal disputes wh fraudulent
% merchants and customers, % merchants and customers,
Chaum's published design does not clearly Chaum's published design does not clearly
limit the financial damage a exchange might suffer from the limit the financial damage an exchange might suffer from the
disclosure of its private online signing key. disclosure of its private online signing key.
\item Chaum did not support fractional payments or refunds without \item Chaum did not support fractional payments or refunds without
weakening customer anonymity. weakening customer anonymity.

15
doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
View File

@ -54,11 +54,16 @@ anonymous payment systems. Thus, the efficiency of Taler is unclear.
Additional Comment: The description of the protocols of Taler omits many Additional Comment: The description of the protocols of Taler omits many
details. In particular, the authors should describe in detail how the refunds details. In particular, the authors should describe in detail how the refunds
are executed using the refresh protocol, as the authors claim that the refresh are executed using the refresh protocol, as the authors claim that the refresh
protocol allows refunds as a contribution. Furthermore, the authors should protocol allows refunds as a contribution.
interpret the notation FDHK, and cite the reference for EdDSA. The title of
Subsection 3.1 may be misleading, as this subsection does not describe the > We added more material on refunds
security model. The authors should rename the title. The “We have computed Li…”
in Subsection 4.3 should be L(i). Furthermore, the authors should interpret the notation FDHK, and cite the
reference for EdDSA. The title of Subsection 3.1 may be misleading, as this
subsection does not describe the security model. The authors should rename the
title. The “We have computed Li…” in Subsection 4.3 should be L(i).
> FIXME: can/should we address this?
----------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------- ----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------