Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 06/12/2022
Pot Size: $36,500 USDC
Total HM: 16
Participants: 119
Period: 3 days
Judge: berndartmueller
Total Solo HM: 2
Id: 189
League: ETH
Rank: 105/119
Findings: 1
Award: $0.61
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: RaymondFam
Also found by: 0xdeadbeef0x, 0xhacksmithh, AkshaySrivastav, Awesome, Bnke0x0, CRYP70, HollaDieWaldfee, JC, Parth, Rahoz, Tutturu, __141345__, ahmedov, ajtra, asgeir, aviggiano, bin2chen, btk, carrotsmuggler, cccz, chaduke, cryptonue, dic0de, fatherOfBlocks, fs0c, hansfriese, jonatascm, karanctf, ladboy233, lumoswiz, martin, obront, pashov, pauliax, rvierdiiev, shark, simon135, supernova, tourist, yellowBirdy, zapaz, zaskoh
0.6136 USDC - $0.61
It looks like EIP 1884 is headed our way in the Istanbul hard fork. This change increases the gas cost of the SLOAD operation and therefore breaks some existing smart contracts.
Those contracts will break because their fallback functions used to consume less than 2300 gas, and they’ll now consume more. Why is 2300 gas significant? It’s the amount of gas a contract’s fallback function receives if it’s called via Solidity’s transfer() or send() methods.
In this link you will find the entire explanation that consensus mentions. https://consensys.net/diligence/blog/2019/09/stop-using-soliditys-transfer-now/
Instead of transfer you could use call and validate with a require that returns true.
#0 - c4-judge
2022-12-10T00:31:17Z
berndartmueller marked the issue as duplicate of #99
#1 - c4-judge
2023-01-03T12:49:07Z
berndartmueller marked the issue as satisfactory