-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Contraction creation with colliding addresses #83
Comments
This is one of several soft assumptions based on probabilistic arguments that could be made protocol-level assumptions. For example, I'd like extra protection against discovering address 0's private key. I acknowledge it seems silly but you can imagine a world where it was silly not to have sanity checks on the crypto ops enforced by protocol. |
relevant: the ethereum org's multisig wallet worked by funding the contract's address in the genesis block and then later publishing the contract after the thawing |
Thank you @kumavis that probably is the reason for this behaviour. That doesn't necessarily means it makes sense for the future. Are we expecting any other pre-funded contracts to be revealed? On the other hand it is an interesting feature. |
Having spent a bit of time reconsidering this, my suggestion is to keep the current way of "overwriting" unless the That enables pre-funded contracts, but disables subsequent overwrites once the contract has been deployed. |
Collisions simply aren't resolvable. |
There has been no activity on this issue for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
This issue was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment. |
Add namespace for Concordium (ccd)
I am looking for the definitive answer to what happens in the very unlikely, but still possible, scenario when a newly created contract address would clash with an existing (contract) address.
If I understand the YP properly, in Chapter 7 it describes it as:
Is that correct? Wouldn't it make more sense having it as a clear error condition?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: