search

0xjac / ERC777

New Standard for Ethereum Token
Mozilla Public License 2.0
128 stars 69 forks source link

removed gas loops, does not deploy due "This contract does not implement all functions and thus cannot be created." #64

Open lrgeoemtry opened 5 years ago

lrgeoemtry commented 5 years ago

hi 777 gets roughly 27 static warnings in remix. you can remove 12 of them by defining a boundry on bytes (at line 252 of this contract: https://gist.github.com/lrgeoemtry/df096412147a1859bae07cc31f51b267) of "bytes32"

doing this though makes it so i cannot deploy the contract getting this error: "This contract does not implement all functions and thus cannot be created." I'm going to keep hacking away at it, but im hopeful the community can help.

the other 15 static analysis warnings are 2 reentrancy issues which we modified with mutex (492-505 & 528-509) and "similar variable names" which is readability deprecation but w/e

any help with this is much appreciated as currently sending a 777 token is like .1 rEth and as expensive as hell.

lrgeoemtry commented 5 years ago

there must be something with the original contract i deployed to here : https://ropsten.etherscan.io/address/0xc443f11cfa23c1b5a098a46cefb76cc998089a46

because i took the same logic and deployed it here: https://ropsten.etherscan.io/address/0x77752a746a3433b27a21413978b12d145bf2efc7

and the transfers aren't as expensive anymore , and theyre not failing.

lrgeoemtry commented 5 years ago

i tested the waters to deploy this logic on mainnet getting a warning that it might fail, which i don't receive with ropsten. potentially something fatal?

udartsev commented 5 years ago

Actually have same errors. Contracts from here: https://github.com/0xjac/ERC777 Adopted contracts for Solidity EVM v.0.5.6 from that repo (and same) drop in error...

0xjac commented 5 years ago

Thanks for the report, I will investigate. A quick check in Remix revealed nothing so far for me.