Is there anyone sharing the same opinion that the use of UQ112X112 by Uniswap is unnecessary at all? Can all uint112, and uint32 be replace with uint256? Does the gas cost change much, considering the overhead costs of downsizing uint256 to uint112 and all other encoding, decoding functions?

reserves is 112, for calc these reserves are conv to 224

112 was chosen because, in a 256 bits slot, these reserves can be stored in uint224, leaving 32 bits storage free.

This is no doubt a neat design with a lot of overheads. Although using plain uint256 can increase storage cost, it can save overhead costs. At the end, it's hard to tell whether using uint112 is a good choice, besides, it's making it hard to upgrade, let alone making readability worse. Just my thoughts and I'm trying to convert the contracts into 0.8+ versions.

There is an overhead yes, but in the longrun 112 is always preferred. Reserve balance gets modified on each and every swap and if your token in popular enough...

Yes, you are right on this point. Or alternatively, there ought to be like a vanilla version. Easier to read and implement at the cost of higher gas fees.

Uniswap never intended to make their code easier to read imo🙃

Ok there might be gas fee concerns but still...

Their white paper says they try to reduce the exposure surface. They did well on this.

interface IPancakeCallee {
function pancakeCall(address sender, uint amount0, uint amount1, bytes calldata data) external;
}

@mrrobot3_3 Do you know what this function does?

Hmm where is this defined? Or being used

is it in pancake factory maybe?

It is in the swap function in PancakePair contract

Yes but you must send the function

I think it is a design to keep the ability of passing calldata open. There is no actual implementation anywhere else.

yes it must be

I assume it's safe to delete it, if I'm designing a swap contract for regular known ERC20 tokens which I do not expect having calldata being passed in. This is what I meant a vanilla version, keeping everything as simple as possible.

Thats for custom routers

are you trying to do a flash swaps?

What do you mean?

Nah, just for a normal ERC20 token.

Swap function takes in an additional parameter as data. So if the to address is a contract rather than eoa, it will call the function pancakecall on that contract with the given data

So if you build a custom router which instead of sending the tokens directly to the caller, takes the token to itself, perform some action based on the definition of pancakecall and then sends to actual sender, you need that

Normally the data is kept 0 I think

Nice, and to is supposed to be an EOA right? I think instead, putting require(!isContract(to)) can eliminate that kind of situation, what do you think?

To can either be eoa or normal address based on the parameter data. If the data is not empty, to must be a contract or the transaction will fail

Hence the check data.length > 0

@mrrobot3_3 Right, I guess they had smart contract traders in mind when designing this.

One usecase I can think of is building your own exchange, but with using the liquidity of pancakeswap itself.

@mrrobot3_3 Not sure if this is what you meant, were you thinking it is making sharing liquidity among exchanges possible?

You want to make an exchange
You don't have any capital for liquidity nor marketing skills
You create a fancy router with some extended functionalities than pancakes router
Instead of using your own lp, you refer pacakes factory
So custom router powered by pancakes liquidity
...
Profit?🙃

Alright. That's beyond me for now. I'll take a note of this somewhere and come back at it. For now, I'll just delete it. I like this quote "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Another quick question: I took a look at the USDT and BUSD contracts. They are no different from any other standard ERC20 token contract. So basically, the issuers say they are stable, because an equivalent amount of collaterals have been deposited to a trusted third party, and then the market takes it as stable coins. Is this how USDT and BUSD work?

Hmmm that’s scary

Yeah. They have a reserve in which for every usdt minted, corresponding amount of real USD is stored. I think there is provision to provide usdt and get actual us dollar (not sure, but there are stablecoins that does this).

Completely centralized. They can even blacklist users and recover funds if there was an accidental transaction

do you know about IRON stable?

I just discovered it few days ago. It should be like an algo stable but "safer"

https://www.coindesk.com/tether-first-reserve-composition-report-usdt

Did a quick google and this is what came up. So yeah, not really 1:1 reserve, but reserve is there

Never heard of it

If someone is interested https://docs.iron.finance/

Honestly, my real life job is not even remotely related to blockchain. No kidding

do you want it to be?

Not really. I am happy with my current job and makes a decent amount out of it

Life is good🙂

Yeah. Search in the jobs group, I'm sure there are many pros in there @AdamTokenAdvisors

https://soliditydeveloper.com/deploy-to-binance-smart-chain

you can if you modified the renounce function

you should save the last owner before the renounce is called

here you should add something like:
if(_lastOwner == my address) can do things

Can u check with this link? what the hack?

NO these lines not being added

Looks like dev extra smart, He renouced correct and aftr that made it honeypot

I'm not very good at it, so can u guys understand it?

This will not be possible on actual ownable contract. There would be some backdoor. Gimme a min

wtf it is private

how did he called it

ahhhh

transferOwne

not transferOwnership

ohh fuk

Can't beliive skilled devs are doing scams

Haha figured it

this is

That's one sneaky mofo

wow, please tell, I'm curios

There it is

owner and Owner

Two variables

very smart the dev ahah

why 2 times?

to scam ahah

what happened if he used 2 variables?

He changed _owner while renouncing, but kept _Owner as real owner

What actually happened, can u explaing? how he executed this? my one friend stuck

To give the illusion of renouncing

Check line 412 and 419

Using _owner while renouncing and _Owner for actual owner check

so the He changed the real owner and renounced using old owner?

No he used one additional variable as decoy and changed it while keeping the real one unchanged

so he was doing these changes while renouncing?

Can we talk PM?

Is it also new to you?

Two variables
_owner - fake
_Owner - real
While renouncing
Changed _owner to 0x0
_Owner remain unchanged

Since _Owner is unchanged, he can call all the onlyOwner functions

😵

Yeah sure

You tried tweaking it to your standard? Or are you just missing steps on launching

What procedure did you use?

lol, best thing is people actually thought he renounced

how knowing solidity can save you from getting rugged :P

My little miniSwap is up and running. Every contract has been rewritten to 0.8.4. @mrrobot3_3 The code is so much cleaner.

Good job🙂

Your own lp or pancakes?

Will use CAKE eventually. Right now, it's a toy lp token.

Is it open source

these swap tokens for bnb/eth and send to charity

or you want privacy

anyone know how to fetch the jazzicons metamask uses?

not really solidity

but this is the best place I can think of to ask

👀

it is the right one

😐

It will be.

It's what's it says