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
This is something mentioned by @privacy-scaling-explorations/maci team as a feature which is missing in their gatekeeper design. However, the current design of Excubiae should make this possible (should, because it has not been tested yet).
This is strictly relevant for the following:
Anyone should be able to create a new gatekeeper based on the state of an already deployed (and used) gatekeeper.
Anyone should be able to create a new gatekeeper using the same constraint logic as an already deployed gatekeeper.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Anyone should be able to create a new gatekeeper based on the state of an already deployed (and used) gatekeeper.
how would this work with double-checks? or is this more of a: only pass second gatekeeper if you passed the first and you satisfy the second criteria too?
Anyone should be able to create a new gatekeeper based on the state of an already deployed (and used) gatekeeper.
how would this work with double-checks? or is this more of a: only pass second gatekeeper if you passed the first and you satisfy the second criteria too?
The following does not yet involve double checks (delayed to ms2), but for them you should potentially be able to satisfy expressions of checks (checkGateA && checkGateB || checkGateC). So if A, B or C is an already passed gatekeeper and you want to create a new gatekeeper based on it's state, you need to add a check (criteria) about it in your pass logic, like !gateA.alreadyPassed(address).
This is something mentioned by @privacy-scaling-explorations/maci team as a feature which is missing in their gatekeeper design. However, the current design of Excubiae should make this possible (should, because it has not been tested yet).
This is strictly relevant for the following:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: