diff options
| author | Florian Dold <florian.dold@gmail.com> | 2017-05-17 15:23:26 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Florian Dold <florian.dold@gmail.com> | 2017-05-17 15:23:26 +0200 |
| commit | 14cf795955a58bb83cda7318bb54ffe6d8060852 (patch) | |
| tree | ac816958720a39b2cff98c5e8915e40e38cfcdea /doc/paper | |
| parent | 838438e95db00fd9ff028e25a2539888171703f3 (diff) | |
| download | exchange-14cf795955a58bb83cda7318bb54ffe6d8060852.tar.gz exchange-14cf795955a58bb83cda7318bb54ffe6d8060852.tar.bz2 exchange-14cf795955a58bb83cda7318bb54ffe6d8060852.zip | |
typo
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/paper')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/paper/taler.tex | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt | 15 |
2 files changed, 11 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/doc/paper/taler.tex b/doc/paper/taler.tex index d53fe2f3d..5e9811997 100644 --- a/doc/paper/taler.tex +++ b/doc/paper/taler.tex @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ key reasons for DigiCash's failure include: \item % In addition to the risk of legal disputes wh fraudulent % merchants and customers, 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. \item Chaum did not support fractional payments or refunds without weakening customer anonymity. diff --git a/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt b/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt index 6dfee73ec..95fd94627 100644 --- a/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt +++ b/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt @@ -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 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 -protocol allows refunds as a contribution. 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). +protocol allows refunds as a contribution. + +> We added more material on refunds + +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 --------------------- |