Closed CJentzsch closed 7 years ago
I added and removed this functionality a couple of times. The argument against this is security and also awareness of the payment recipient. I'm of the opinion to allow any body call this method, but I would like to hear @barryWhiteHat and @GriffGreen opinions about this.
The main thing is that the recipient should be aware of the payment... so they should be the one to call it.
Its tough because both of these PRs are the way Jordi originally designed it... but to appease the security guys, we are limiting the functionality. This goes well with our design structure, which is to do a lot of beta testing live. The money will all be stored safely in the Multisig, and all of these contracts will be more used for signaling and then we will manually send. We will learn a lot about working with the people that are using the contracts this way, and all of these contracts will evolve a lot :-) So these changes will happen, but to show any auditors that we are taking the reviews of The DAO contract seriously I really want to be limiting on this first iteration.
Most contracts don't have the ability (also for security reasons) to call arbitrary functions. So it should be possible to call
executePayment
from another contract/address than the reciever.