Well, still, it doesn't make any sense. With this implementation, there cant be a swap or a dex. If the address is generated by the a wallet address, the pool contract cant know which address he control. So there is need of two call, the first needed to create a wallet for pool, the second for letting know the pool which address he control. And due to asynchronous of the Blockchain, this cant be trusted and can lead to security issues

Mar 21, 2022, 6:22 PM

Maybe im missing something, but as long there is no "create_wallet" (internal message) its kinda hard to work with

The coin will be sent to another address, not to the addess of a certain pool

Okay will check

Talking about a liquidity pool, there could be discrepancies with a/b pair plus this can be a serious problem with slippage

Well with notification this can be done

For example; i create a dex. The Factory deploy a pool for a/b, and a malicious actor send a fake transaction to initialize the pool with a wrong wallet address. Due to hashing system, i won't be able to deploy another pool contract for that pair

As long the contract can be updated (unsecure, means that someonr control it)

Mar 21, 2022, 6:50 PM