commit 14cf795955a58bb83cda7318bb54ffe6d8060852
parent 838438e95db00fd9ff028e25a2539888171703f3
Author: Florian Dold <florian.dold@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:23:26 +0200
typo
Diffstat:
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git 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
@@ -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 ---------------------
