{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72/events","html_url":"https://github.com/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72","id":380630798,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzODA2MzA3OTg=","number":72,"title":"Make sure deposits not picked up by validators are included in a period anyway","user":{"login":"johannbarbie","id":659301,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjY1OTMwMQ==","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/659301?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie","html_url":"https://github.com/johannbarbie","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":970306422,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw5NzAzMDY0MjI=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/labels/bounty","name":"bounty","color":"c5def5","default":false},{"id":804740380,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWw4MDQ3NDAzODA=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c","default":true}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2018-11-14T10:25:34Z","updated_at":"2018-12-25T08:45:15Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"MEMBER","body":"deposits create an event in the bridge contract. what if the operator does not include the transaction in the block or withholds the block?\r\n\r\n## Scope \r\n- change the deposit logic so that new period is created in the root contract as soon as deposit is made\r\n- make sure leap-node is working correctly with the change, picking up deposits as it should be\r\n\r\n## Deliverables\r\n- updated root chain contracts with the feature\r\n- (probably) new leap-node release with necessary changes\r\n- (probably) new leap-core release with necessary changes\r\n\r\n## Gain for the project\r\n- increased security for users — they will be able to exit their deposits even if the block with deposit tx was withheld (requires #85 for MoreVP exits)\r\n\r\n## Roles: \r\nbounty gardener: @troggy 5% \r\nbounty worker: @troggy / 85% \r\nbounty reviewer: @eezcjkr  / 10%"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/comments/449825425","html_url":"https://github.com/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72#issuecomment-449825425","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/leapdao/leap-contracts/issues/72","id":449825425,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0OTgyNTQyNQ==","user":{"login":"johannbarbie","id":659301,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjY1OTMwMQ==","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/659301?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie","html_url":"https://github.com/johannbarbie","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/johannbarbie/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-12-25T08:45:15Z","updated_at":"2018-12-25T08:45:15Z","author_association":"MEMBER","body":"i still think creating periods out of sync with tendermint will halt bft consensus. how about:\r\n- creating a `startDepositExit(depositId)` function\r\n- use depositId at utxoId in exits mapping\r\n- modify `challengeExit()` function to allow null objection for `_prevProof`\r\n=> if `_prevProof == null`, use depositId to look up exit from mapping and challenge if values match.\r\n\r\nThe validator could attack this simple exit procedure by withholding a deposit, until the user registers an exit, and then include it and challenge with it. There is two ways to deal with it:\r\n1. define a max period distance between deposit and inclusion of deposit tx which can only be used to challenge depositExits.\r\n2. do nothing. the user will loose a stake, but will force the operator to include the deposit. which can be exited later on. "}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"johannbarbie"}}