Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
ZKraft ๐ฉ
@zkraft
How's possible that on a public blockchian, when tokenA is moved, immediately tokenB is moved, even if I haven't authorized it? I'm not speaking of a scam chain, but of @gnosischain - specifically looking at EURe Asset. Monerium has upgraded their token from V1 to V2. Now, every time V1 is move, automatically also V2 token is moved (without any authorization!). I suspect this is due to some forced updates at Node level - but haven't read anything about it. If that's true, where's the "decentralization" part of @gnosischain ? Prove around what I'm saying: check any tx connected to @gnosispay and EURe - for example this one https://gnosisscan.io/tx/0xc3e635b2355a46e21bcacf6a900a0d1ed61e07a63aacc598bb42437ca01c39ae
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Moon
@moon.eth
I didn't look close enough to determine exactly what it's doing but both the spender contract you called in that transaction and the new token contract are upgradeable. The original token contract uses external contracts for access control and storage so it's possible that these resources could be shared with other contracts that could approve this kind of thing. It doesn't require changing node software, this can be done entirely inside the way these contracts are written.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
ZKraft ๐ฉ
@zkraft
no, the v1 token is not upgradable, and it's the one moving. Otherwise they'd have not release a v2, but just do the upgrade (see the code here - https://gnosisscan.io/token/0xcb444e90d8198415266c6a2724b7900fb12fc56e#code ). And if it's not upgradable, how can they force the event on a Token v2?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Moon
@moon.eth
V1 doesn't follow an upgrade proxy pattern, but if you look you can see it calls external contracts for transfer validation and for a "controller" and for token balance storage. Those references could be updated to change the functionality of the token.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
