4 ms·
Deployed contracts are bytecode. It's up to the author to publish it on sites like etherscan. Yes decompilers exist I'm sure at some level of reasonable output
by pests 5y ago
Deployed contracts are bytecode. It's up to the author to publish it on sites like etherscan.
Yes decompilers exist I'm sure at some level of reasonable output. That's a problem that has existed in all paid software.
Or like my sibling said you supplement the contract with a good UI, additional tools, good branding, etc.
But then on the other hand open source exists with contracts too.
Almost every defi swap on multiple chains (evm compatible) is based off Uniswap. There's multiple versions and the clones have upgraded as needed and it's all accepted. Makes integration with existing explorers and wallets easier as well. Most support these uniswap-compatible contract clones because the API is the same.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoHm that seems to defeat the whole purpose of transparency and trustlessness? What is the point of a contract whose contents I can't read? Who would "sign" (interact with) such a thing? But others said the same, so it may be true. Perhaps for saving storage/bandwidth, and you can simply verify that it is the contract corresponding to some source code that has been published elsewhere?
- pests 5y agoEh, they exist. Not many people even know how to check the source or even if it's been verified. Saving bandwidth is definitely a reason. The EVM call to create the contract charges a gas fee per byte. Currently etherscan and other chain explorer sites will recompile your provided source (and compiler options) and ensure your deployed bytecode matches their results. If so they publicly provide the source and a nice verification checkbox. Some also give you (the public) tools to make read/write API calls to the contract directly by introspecting the API.
- pests 5y agoMost projects do opt in to transparency by verifying the source. Its up to you who you support.