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
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
You can also generalize these instructions to modify your ipa for any other reason.
Error message
ERROR ITMS-90046: "Invalid Code Signing Entitlements. Your application bundle's signature contains code signing entitlements that are not supported on iOS. Specifically, value '*' for key 'com.apple.developer.associated-domains' in 'Payload/Exponent.app/Exponent' is not supported."
Assumptions
My app id is io.getsparks.sparks
My distribution certificate name is iPhone Distribution: Boost Labs, Inc
I heard some points of criticism to how React deals with reactivity and it's focus on "purity". It's interesting because there are really two approaches evolving. There's a mutable + change tracking approach and there's an immutability + referential equality testing approach. It's difficult to mix and match them when you build new features on top. So that's why React has been pushing a bit harder on immutability lately to be able to build on top of it. Both have various tradeoffs but others are doing good research in other areas, so we've decided to focus on this direction and see where it leads us.
I did want to address a few points that I didn't see get enough consideration around the tradeoffs. So here's a small brain dump.
"Compiled output results in smaller apps" - E.g. Svelte apps start smaller but the compiler output is 3-4x larger per component than the equivalent VDOM approach. This is mostly due to the code that is usually shared in the VDOM "VM" needs to be inlined into each component. The tr
ICS: Cinderella Tokens: An Async/IBC friendly alternative to flash loans
Flashloans are a fascinating economic coordination mechanism that has emerged out the Ethereum architecture as a result of a synchronous, sequential, atomic transaction system. It allows anonymous coordination between capital providers and arbitrageurs because the capital providers can condition providing any capital on protocol enforced guarantee that the entire arbitrage is profitable denominated in the token being lent.
One of the effects of this process has been the it ensures an efficient and healthy liquidation market for the collateral in long term debt instruments. It also enables low cost scaling of economic exploits.
Why don’t flash loans exist in IBC world?
Flash loans are impossible in an IBC world because IBC semantics require finalizing a block on the origin chain rather than on the receiving chain. This makes atomicity for the lender difficult and moves us into the domain of over collateralized lending.
Start by checking that there aren't any previous ssh keys inside the FIDO2 authenticator of your YubiKey. You can check if they exist by running the command below:
nix shell nixpkgs#yubikey-manager -c ykman fido credentials list
If the command above outputs a string mentioning "ssh" or "openssh", then you have already got a key generated and store on your YubiKey.
Evaluating additional authentication factors
Before generating a new ssh key to store on your YubiKey you must consider which additional required authentication factors you want to use. Below you can see a table with the available factors and their corresponding command: