just to be clear:

the source code submitted to etherscan may not be equivalent to the current compiled code on the chain.

there is no way to easily get a copy of the code from the chain and decompile it.

correct?

The source code submitted to the etherscan must be the same. Even a single space make your verification to fail.

yes BUT after etherscan verifies it, updates can be applied and etherscan does not re-check it, and there is not an easy way for me to confirm whether etherscan source is current or not. is that right?

Updates? You can change the states but not the source code

I'm trying to figure out why token "HATE" does xyz but the contract source code on etherscan only includes functions for z

I'd greatly appreciate if you could help explain to me. That one is just an example, but I learn languages by looking at others' code, and in this example, it went terribly awry.

which contract are you referring to? and the missing functionality

contract 0xe75d3b39d017985caf20fac7134ed55b8b47cc26 .. the token takes a fee on each transaction and transfers it to a uniswap liquidity pool. but in the source, it does none of that.

When you transfer your token to another wallet?

correct

How do u makes sure they actually do that?

@tyler1111 the token advertises that it does that. when you do a transaction, metamask asks you to approve the fee. and you can see the contract address interacting with uniswap.

But the Heavengate's contract address is this one
0x054bd236b42385c938357112f419dc5943687886
And you are referring to this:
0xe75d3b39d017985caf20fac7134ed55b8b47cc26

wow, OK, now I feel dumb. this makes much more sense. so you can study the source using etherscan reliably. awesome!!!

thank you!

Yeah, there are many fake tokens

View doesn't change the state

yes but opcodes will still be there,

that requires some computation by EVM

Call uses your own computational power

that means , if the transaction is sent to the network ,pure and view functions will consume gas.

You can't interact with the smart contracts without any provider.
It can be local node, infura etc

got it, only when transaction is broadcast to others it will cost you

view doesn't gets broadcasted to the network

And you can't have any method within a view function which modifies the state.

they cost gas if they are a part of transaction , let's say if you have a public function A() and that call a "view" function from inside and the return value of that "view" function is initialized to a "state variable" already present in the contract inside A(), then i think EVM will also consider the computation of view function

Here these guys said it
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/52885/view-pure-gas-usage-cost-gas-if-called-internally-by-another-function

Let's say you have two function A and B (view).
If you call B directly it won't cost u anything,
But if A (non-view) calls B it will cost some extra gas (based on the complexity)

hey tyler can you look at second answer in the link i sent.
The guy says - "They do cost gas if they're part of a transaction that needs to be mined. Gas compensates the network for running your code. It doesn't matter that this particular function doesn't update state; it still takes resources to execute, so it costs gas." . His explanation is the example you just sent , right ?

still learning

As I said, only if it's part of the transaction.

cool cool

You can check yourself through Etherscan

i will do that

thanks man