Sync block 243825 #437
Labels
Comments
masonforest
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 21, 2018
Transaction [0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f) was failing consensus at [block 243826](https://etherscan.io/block/243826) because it was a `Contract Create` to an account that already had a balance. Before creating a contract we make sure that contract doesn't already exist. Before this commit we were using using `Account.exists?` for that check. `Account.exists?` checks the balance of an account as well as whether it's contract code is set. This was incorrect. Instead now use `Account.is_simple_account?` which just checks if an account has it's contract code set. This allows for a sneaky trick called hiding ether described here as [Quirk #1 - hiding in plain sight](http://swende.se/blog/Ethereum_quirks_and_vulns.html).
masonforest
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 21, 2018
Transaction [0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f) was failing consensus at [block 243826](https://etherscan.io/block/243826) because it was a `Contract Create` to an account that already had a balance. Before creating a contract we make sure that contract doesn't already exist. Before this commit we were using using `Account.exists?` for that check. `Account.exists?` checks the balance of an account as well as whether it's contract code is set. This was incorrect. Instead now use `Account.is_simple_account?` which just checks if an account has it's contract code set. This allows for a sneaky trick called hiding ether described [here](http://swende.se/blog/Ethereum_quirks_and_vulns.html) as `Quirk #1 - hiding in plain sight`.
masonforest
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 21, 2018
Transaction [0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f) was failing consensus at [block 243826](https://etherscan.io/block/243826) because it was a `Contract Create` to an account that already had a balance. Before creating a contract we make sure that contract doesn't already exist. Before this commit we were using using `Account.exists?` for that check. `Account.exists?` checks the balance of an account as well as whether it's contract code is set. This was incorrect. Instead now use `Account.is_simple_account?` which just checks if an account has it's contract code set. This allows for a sneaky trick called hiding ether described [here](http://swende.se/blog/Ethereum_quirks_and_vulns.html) as `Quirk #1 - hiding in plain sight`.
masonforest
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 21, 2018
Transaction [0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f) was failing consensus at [block 243826](https://etherscan.io/block/243826) because it was a `Contract Create` to an account that already had a balance. Before creating a contract we make sure that contract doesn't already exist. Before this commit we were using using `Account.exists?` for that check. `Account.exists?` checks the balance of an account as well as whether it's contract code is set. This was incorrect. Instead now use `Account.is_simple_account?` which just checks if an account has it's contract code set. This allows for a sneaky trick called hiding ether described [here](http://swende.se/blog/Ethereum_quirks_and_vulns.html) as `Quirk #1 - hiding in plain sight`.
masonforest
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 24, 2018
Transaction [0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f) was failing consensus at [block 243826](https://etherscan.io/block/243826) because it was a `Contract Create` to an account that already had a balance. Before creating a contract we make sure that contract doesn't already exist. Before this commit we were using using `Account.exists?` for that check. `Account.exists?` checks the balance of an account as well as whether it's contract code is set. This was incorrect. Instead now use `Account.is_simple_account?` which just checks if an account has it's contract code set. This allows for a sneaky trick called hiding ether described [here](http://swende.se/blog/Ethereum_quirks_and_vulns.html) as `Quirk #1 - hiding in plain sight`.
masonforest
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 25, 2018
Transaction [0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9aac76c9ed191da631b5e70c8824f2ad106a0f5147d57c611ed64653734dd85f) was failing consensus at [block 243826](https://etherscan.io/block/243826) because it was a `Contract Create` to an account that already had a balance. Before creating a contract we make sure that contract doesn't already exist. Before this commit we were using using `Account.exists?` for that check. `Account.exists?` checks the balance of an account as well as whether it's contract code is set. This was incorrect. Instead now use `Account.is_simple_account?` which just checks if an account has it's contract code set. This allows for a sneaky trick called hiding ether described [here](http://swende.se/blog/Ethereum_quirks_and_vulns.html) as `Quirk #1 - hiding in plain sight`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
#435 got us past block 179098, we are now failing to verify block 24385.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: