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
The reachability proofs of dss.md can be thought of as axiomatically defining the theory k-dss that is the dapp that is MCD. We are working with two standard models (we expect) to model this theory, [dss solidity]((https://github.com/makerdao/dss/) and dss solidity assembly.
To try to quantify and strive towards as much coverage as possible, or to try to quantize the extent to which k-dss defines MCD, it is helpful to consider what would be "non-standard" models of k-dss. In other words, what EVM bytecode could we imagine that might pass the test and still have unintended behavior?
Three obvious tasks remaining to make k-dss more of an exhaustive spec are #24, #12 and #16.
I think we could turn this into a really fun reverse bug bounty game
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The reachability proofs of dss.md can be thought of as axiomatically defining the theory
k-dss
that is the dapp that is MCD. We are working with two standard models (we expect) to model this theory, [dss solidity]((https://github.com/makerdao/dss/) and dss solidity assembly.To try to quantify and strive towards as much coverage as possible, or to try to quantize the extent to which
k-dss
defines MCD, it is helpful to consider what would be "non-standard" models ofk-dss
. In other words, what EVM bytecode could we imagine that might pass the test and still have unintended behavior?Three obvious tasks remaining to make
k-dss
more of an exhaustive spec are #24, #12 and #16.I think we could turn this into a really fun reverse bug bounty game
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: