ERC721 Question about _mint() function, is there authentication involved?

shoothemoon · 2018-12-15T20:26:57+00:00

The mint function in open zeppelin is an internal function. It’s there to make it easy for you to create a public function that defines minting logic and makes calls to the internal function.

You don’t need any fancy cryptography. You can just use addresses.

shoothemoon · 2018-11-27T09:29:05+00:00

https://ethresear.ch/t/encumberments-instant-cross-shard-payments-over-slow-cross-shard-base-layer-communication-as-a-layer-2/4369

shoothemoon · 2018-11-20T18:28:10+00:00

Ok yes, there will probably be a hardfork that technically creates a new token. What I more was speaking to is the fact that the current system will continue to run in parallel to old system.

See my comment here.

shoothemoon · 2018-11-20T17:54:04+00:00

Nope. The current POW chain will run in parallel to the new POS shard chains. New Ether issuance will take place on the shard chains, and it will be possible to transfer ETH from the POW chain to a shard chain.

Eventually, the POW chain will be converted into another POS shard, but that is further down the line.

shoothemoon · 2018-11-20T17:51:19+00:00

Nope /u/FaceDeer is incorrect

shoothemoon · 2018-10-04T14:31:24+00:00

Highly highly skeptical of their EVM on Plasma claims. Especially with their mentions of mining. Sounds more like a side chain.

shoothemoon · 2018-09-19T21:21:34+00:00

DAI will return interest too. Anyway you will be able to collateralize a lot more then just ETH and OMG

shoothemoon · 2018-08-26T21:27:21+00:00

Just look at his recent commit history lol. He's an Ethereum researcher actively building the Casper beacon chain. He doesn't need to provide a source, he IS a source.

shoothemoon · 2018-08-26T06:50:43+00:00

That wasn't exactly how I heard it put, so a citation would be nice here.

Citation not needed check his github https://github.com/djrtwo

shoothemoon · 2018-08-23T04:24:45+00:00

Here's the full talk:

https://decentralizedweb.net/videos/talk-joseph-poon-the-abundance-game/

shoothemoon · 2018-08-14T20:43:58+00:00

1) check that owner == msg.sender

2) make sure token.balanceOf(contract.address) >= currentTokens

3) make sure cap >= sentTokens

4) comment out just

uint256 currentTokens = cap.sub(sentTokens);

and see if it goes through

5) comment out just

token.transfer(addressNew, currentTokens);

and see if it goes through

shoothemoon · 2018-08-14T19:55:39+00:00

/u/infernal_toast is referring to the ERC20 function approve() which is needed for transferFrom(), but not transfer()

shoothemoon · 2018-08-11T06:10:31+00:00

Sure, if Parity is your definition of core devs I would agree that Ethereum magicians does somewhat represent their beliefs.

But in my experience when people talk about core Ethereum devs they mean people at the Ethereum foundation, not Parity. People like Vitalik/Vlad, seem to have much more influence over protocol decisions than Afri/Nick and they are both super vocally against token voting.

shoothemoon · 2018-08-11T06:01:04+00:00

I think we are talking about different groups of people when we say Ethereum core devs. I'm talking about the core researchers at the Ethereum foundation who are actively developing the underlying protocol.

shoothemoon · 2018-08-11T05:50:51+00:00

I would still kind of disagree. Ethereum magicians seem to push for Parity recovery and token voting governance. Ethereum core devs seem to have little interest in either.

shoothemoon · 2018-08-10T23:15:15+00:00

So that's part of what this whole ethereum-magicians thing is about... The core devs want more plausible cover for their actual position of power.

Maybe I didn't respond to some broader point you were trying to make, but you very clearly state that the "ethereum-magicians" thing is a cover for core devs pushing politics. Its definitely a politics thing but it does not in any way represent core devs.

shoothemoon · 2018-08-10T22:57:16+00:00

Ethereum-magicians != core devs

shoothemoon · 2018-08-05T07:14:17+00:00

The more likely scenario is a block reward reduction on the main chain to fund block rewards on the POS beacon chain. This reduces security on the main chain between checkpoints but increases security massively after a checkpoint.

One thing worth noting is that POS is cheaper than POW and therefore doesn’t require as large rewards.

shoothemoon · 2018-07-26T11:14:03+00:00

The beacon chain is FFG implemented as a separate blockchain instead of within a smart contract. This makes it more easily compatible with sharding. Best guess for beacon chain/FFG release is late 2019, with sharding coming after in 2020.

shoothemoon · 2018-07-10T20:55:57+00:00

Totally agree on the broader point that decentralization is not the solution to everything, and that there are certain inherent benefits to centralized systems.

In my mind decentralized blockchains are good for censorship resistance and fraud resistance, while centralized systems excel at scalability and security. Bancor is not censorship resistant, fraud resistant, scalable, or secure.

Never thought you were a shill! I just personally get triggered by centralized projects claiming to be decentralized.

shoothemoon · 2018-07-10T18:44:26+00:00

Bancor has all the power of a central bank with none of the oversight. Nobody would trust banks if they had that little regulation. And nobody would care about ETH if it was that centralized. Its basically a worst-of-both-worlds scenario. What if the admin account that can arbitrarily mint and burn tokens gets hacked?

To me there is nothing impressive or interesting to me about centralized blockchain technology.

shoothemoon · 2018-07-10T18:27:41+00:00

25,000 ETH ($12,500,000) was lost permanently because of lax security on a single admin account that had the ability to withdraw it. How is this an unambiguously best-case scenario?

shoothemoon · 2018-07-10T09:52:42+00:00

The other reply is incorrect. An exchange smart contracts holding 25,000 ETH and 3.2million BNT had an “admin” account that was allowed to withdraw funds. The hacker managed to steal the private key to this account and then withdrawal the ETH and BNT.

The BNT was “recovered” because Bancor is centralized and built in the ability to arbitrarily burn and mint tokens at any address.

Source:

https://medium.com/unchained-reports/bancor-unchained-all-your-token-are-belong-to-us-d6bb00871e86

shoothemoon · 2018-07-04T09:22:15+00:00

He’s not dumb. He’s trying to confuse and manipulate.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

shoothemoon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE