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
Suppose we create a timestamp on 'abcd' with the following operations:
OpReverse -> 'dcba' -> OpReverse -> 'abcd'
...and we're back where we started.
Now granted, this will work just fine in the opentimestamps client, just it's an unexpected property that adds complexity in some cases. For instance, the current calendar implementation in the opentimestamps server would probably fail if you ever added a timestamp containing two reverses in a row to it.
Thoughts? Might be enough to just put a warning on it and provide mechanisms to prevent OpReverse being used in places where it can cause issues, like the server.
Okay, if OpReverse add complexity it's better to remove it completely in the new version.
I'll point old version timestamp file to the previous implementation
Suppose we create a timestamp on 'abcd' with the following operations:
...and we're back where we started.
Now granted, this will work just fine in the opentimestamps client, just it's an unexpected property that adds complexity in some cases. For instance, the current calendar implementation in the opentimestamps server would probably fail if you ever added a timestamp containing two reverses in a row to it.
Thoughts? Might be enough to just put a warning on it and provide mechanisms to prevent OpReverse being used in places where it can cause issues, like the server.
CC: @RCasatta
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: