Ethereums creator, Vitalik Buterin, envisioned the cryptocurrency and blockchain as an extension of Bitcoin. Therefore, Ethereum is more than a store of value; it is a peer-to-peer network that supports the expansion of its blockchain ecosystem, where users develop their own Dapps, DAOs, and NFTs.

The smart contract function gives a prominent feature of Ethereum, a revolutionary technology enhancing collaborations in online environments. The process makes asset exchanges more efficient by automating transactions based on predetermined terms and conditions. Once the two parties complete their roles, the smart contract is executed and cannot be reversed or altered.

However, Ethereum smart contracts pose several security challenges, considering front-running attacks and logical errors are common. Besides, attackers take advantage of timestamps and manipulate them.

Thats why Ethereums competitors developed their unique smart contracts functions to mitigate these challenges. But are they really that efficient and safe?

Besides the security issue, smart contracts on Ethereum are praised for their numerous advantages for users. Theyre cost-efficient, based on decentralization and automated. Therefore, they can provide conditional payments and programmable money through the use of a flexible language that supports multiple computational instructions.

Hence, Ethereum smart contracts can be used in industries like decentralized finance, supply chain management, real estate and even healthcare. Still, institutions might choose smart contracts offered by competitors.

Solana is a Web3 infrastructure system launched later than Ethereum in 2022, so its not as popular. However, its considered by many as a better alternative to Ethereum due to its low cost and fast transaction processing.

Solanas smart contracts support building decentralized applications more efficiently and leverage a superior consensus mechanism. The Proof of History technology ensures security is prioritized during transaction processing, which is a plus compared to Ethereum. Moreover, Solanas smart contract tools, such as Solana CLI and Serum DEX, enhance the blockchains development.

Cardano was released in 2017 and it provides better scalability compared to Ethereum due to its layered architecture. Cardanos blockchain is a productive environment for smart contract development, as it was designed through unique methods on a research-driven approach, making it stable and secure.

One of the best things about Cardano is its energy efficiency features that ensure low gas fees and high transaction speeds. Hence, Cardano is great for creating smart contracts because its native language is designed to allow versatility among multiple industries, supporting the growing demand for the blockchain to be used for smart contracts.

Ethereums smart contract function is based on the Turing system that includes the Solidity programming language and the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine). While most blockchains work similarly, Stellar is different.

The blockchain uses numerous programming languages, such as Python or PHP, through which transactions are executed with constraints. Smart contracts are powered by a multi-signature feature that the two parties have to sign, while Atomicity technology combines multiple operations in a single transaction. Hence, if one operation fails to complete, the other smart contracts will be triggered anyway.

The distributed ledger technology can be leveraged for smart contracts through the Docker container, a system that defines application services. It may be more challenging to run smart contracts on the Hyperledger Fabric network because the technology is more complex.

However, its an intricate project because it supports smart contracts while running on top of the operating system. At the same time, it enhances high-level programming features through the Turing complete system and uses the key-value pair data model. The blockchain network is private, so it requires approval from certificate authorities (CA).

Considering the multiple competitors to Ethereum, were wondering if the technology behind it will ever evolve. The main problem of Ethereum is the rising costs and lack of scalability, so new blockchains can always appear and deliver better services.

Still, Ethereum has a great potential of becoming the best blockchain and smart contract support. Using Solidity, smart contract gas costs can become efficient through the following functions:

Caching storage in memory to avoid storage loads;

Using calldata to enhance runtime execution;

Making some variables immutable to avoid storage-writing operations;

Leveraging private constants instead of public;

At the same time, smart contracts can be upgraded to fix vulnerabilities and add new features. However, improvement may add a new level of complexity that can increase flaws in the system. Moreover, centralization risks may appear due to individuals performing unauthorized updates, which is why users must trust developers in this process.

Recently, Ethereums team provided a development roadmap for the blockchain that would solve its prominent issues. There are currently six stages of improvement, starting with the Merge, which has already been deployed, and ending with the Splurge, which will handle minor fixtures. In between the two, Ethereum plans to increase the number of transactions per second, mitigate risks and make block verification more efficient.

Among these updates, an additional set of EIPs, or Ethereum Improvement Proposals, will contribute to reduced end-user costs, efficient networks, and handling of complex operations. Still, a primary interest is given to improving smart contract execution. For instance, the EIP-5656 operation will deal with copying data in memory that will optimize smart contracts. At the same time, the EIP-6780 will allow smart contracts to be deleted automatically from the blockchain to free up storage space. EIP-1153 will ensure smart contracts are more flexible and gas will be consumed more efficiently. Therefore, the upcoming years will constitute a better and stronger smart contract function for Ethereum.

Ethereum is mainly known for a diverse blockchain, where Dapps, DAOs and NFTs emerged and increased in popularity. But none of these features would see light without the smart contract technology, which enhances automatization and fairness in the exchange between two parties. The technology is revolutionizing and is already introduced in real-life use cases in industries like healthcare and finance.

Read the original post:

Are Ethereums smart contracts better than its competitors? - Tucson Weekly

Ava Protocol, a leading Web3 infrastructure project, has launched its mainnet on Ethereum (ETH), introducing a new system for automating smart contract transactions, according to the latest information shared with Finbold on July 16.

The new development allows developers to make use of Ava Protocols transaction automation, privacy features, composability, and other features within their decentralized applications (dApps) across the Ethereum ecosystem.

Ava Protocols activation model revolutionizes on-chain operations through autonomous super-transactions based on specific triggers such as time, price changes, or smart contract updates.

This simplifies automation processes, reducing the technical barriers for developers and enhancing user experience.

Developers can rely on automated transactions without needing custom code, streamlining the development process.

Chris Li, Founder of Ava Protocol, expressed his enthusiasm for the launch, stating:

With the support of our partners and community, weve reached a pivotal moment in our mission to deliver automated super-transactions on Ethereum. The launch of Ava Protocols mainnet will unlock new use cases for autonomous transactions that power smart contracts. Were excited to showcase the versatility of EigenLayers AVS technology while addressing critical web3 automation challenges.

The mainnet launch as an Actively Validated Service (AVS) on EigenLayer marks a new era for Ava Protocol, as AVSs are not confined by the limitations of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).

Ava Protocol delivers robust on-chain automation with reliable execution for time-sensitive and multi-step transactions, including features such as scheduled payments, stop-loss and limit orders, streaming rewards, and dynamic non-fungible token (NFT) minting.

Alex from EigenYields, a leading operator, likewise highlighted the significance of this launch:

We see immense potential in Ava Protocols automated super-transactions, and are thrilled to provide a secure and resilient foundation for this innovative technology. This aligns with our mission to maximize value for our delegators by pushing the Ethereum ecosystem forward.

Sam Shev, Ava Protocols Head of Marketing, further added:

Were excited to bring Ava Protocols technology to a live environment for the first time and to see what our community will build using super-transactions. Thanks to the EigenLayer operators who have joined us on this mission, Ava Protocol will launch with a strong foundation to anchor everything that comes next.

This mainnet launch follows a successful testnet phase, which saw 10,000 wallet participants and over 1,000 automated transactions generated each day.

Ava Protocol is one of the initial 15 projects to launch an AVS, utilizing pooled security from Ethereum validators through EigenLayers innovative restaking mechanism.

The protocol is launching with support from 20 top EigenLayer operators, including EigenYields, InfraSingularity, Kukis Global, Coinage, and Staking4All.

Ava Protocol plans to publish a detailed AP token incentive plan for initial operators soon.

Link:

Ava Protocols mainnet launches on Ethereum - Finbold - Finance in Bold

Infinite mint attack, explained

An infinite mint attack occurs when an attacker manipulates a contracts code to continuously mint new tokens beyond the authorized supply limit.

This kind of hack is most common in decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols. The attack compromises the integrity and value of a cryptocurrency or token by creating an infinite quantity of them.

For instance, a hacker exploited the Paid networks smart contract vulnerability to mint and burn tokens, resulting in a $180-million loss and an 85% drop in PAIDs value. Over 2.5 million PAID tokens were converted to Ether ETHUSD before the attack was stopped. The network reimbursed users, dispelling rumors of an inside job (rug pull).

The malicious actor might profit from such attacks by selling the tokens created illegally or by interfering with the impacted blockchain networks regular operations. The prevalence of infinite mint attacks emphasizes how crucial it is to perform thorough code audits and incorporate security measures into smart contract development to protect against exploits of this kind.

How does an infinite mint attack work?

To create a loophole that allows the attacker to mint an infinite number of tokens, an infinite mint attack targets vulnerabilities in smart contracts, specifically those related to token minting functionalities.

Step 1: Vulnerability identification

The attacks methodology entails locating logical weaknesses in the contract, usually related to input validation or access control mechanisms. Once the vulnerability is found, the attacker creates a transaction that takes advantage of it, causing the contract to mint new tokens without the necessary authorization or verification. This vulnerability might allow for bypassing the intended limitations on the number of tokens that can be created.

Step 2: Exploitation

The vulnerability is triggered by a malicious transaction that the attacker constructs. This could entail changing parameters, executing particular functions, or taking advantage of unforeseen connections between various code segments.

Step 3: Unlimited mining and token dumping

The exploit allows the attacker to issue tokens in excess of what the protocols architecture intended. This token flood may cause inflation, which would lower the value of the coin linked to the tokens and could result in losses for various stakeholders, including investors and users.

Token dumping is the practice of an attacker swiftly flooding the market with freshly created tokens and then exchanging them for stablecoins or other cryptocurrencies. The original tokens value is sharply diminished by this unexpected increase in supply, causing a price collapse. However, selling the inflated tokens before the market has a chance to benefit the attacker.

Consequences of an infinite mint attack

An infinite mint attack leads to the rapid devaluation of a tokens value, financial losses and ecosystem disruption.

An infinite mint attack creates an endless quantity of tokens or cryptocurrency, instantly devaluing the affected asset and resulting in large losses for users and investors. This compromises the integrity of the entire ecosystem by undermining confidence in the impacted blockchain network and the decentralized apps that are connected to it.

Furthermore, by selling the inflated tokens before the market fully reacts, the attacker can benefit and possibly leave others holding worthless assets. As a result, investors may find it difficult or impossible to sell their assets at a fair price if the attack causes a liquidity crisis.

For instance, during the December 2020 Cover Protocol attack, the tokens value fell from over $700 to less than $5 in a matter of hours, and investors who held COVER tokens suffered financial losses. The hackers minted over 40 quintillion coins.

The collapse of the tokens value can disrupt the entire ecosystem, including decentralized applications (DApps), exchanges and other services that rely on the tokens stability. The attack may result in legal issues and regulatory scrutiny of the project, which could result in fines or other penalties.

Infinite mint attack vs. reentrancy attack

An infinite mint attack aims to create a limitless number of tokens, whereas a reentrancy attack employs withdrawal mechanisms to continually drain funds.

Infinite mint attacks take advantage of flaws in the token creation process to generate an unlimited supply, driving down the value and costing investors losses.

Reentrancy attacks, on the other hand, concentrate on the withdrawal procedure, giving attackers the ability to continuously drain money from a contract before it has a chance to update its balances.

Although any attack can have disastrous outcomes, it is essential to understand the differences to develop effective mitigation techniques.

The key differences between an infinite mint attack and a reentrancy attack are:

How to prevent an infinite mint attack in crypto

Cryptocurrency projects can greatly lower the chance of becoming the target of an endless mint attack and safeguard community members investments by emphasizing security and adopting preventative measures.

It needs a multifaceted strategy that puts security first at every stage of a cryptocurrency project to prevent infinite mint attacks. It is crucial to have thorough and frequent smart contract audits performed by independent security experts. These audits carefully check the code for flaws that could be used to mint infinite amounts of money.

Strong access controls must be in place; minting powers should only be granted to authorized parties; and multisignature wallets should be used for increased security. Real-time monitoring tools are necessary to quickly respond to possible attacks and identify any odd transaction patterns or abrupt surges in the supply of tokens.

Projects should also have strong backup plans ready to handle any possible attacks quickly and minimize damage. This entails having open lines of communication with exchanges, wallet providers and the community at large to anticipate possible problems and plan solutions.

See the article here:

What is an infinite mint attack, and how does it work? - TradingView

LINK (Chainlink) Explained:

Chainlink was founded in 2017 by co-founders Sergey Nazarov, and Steve Ellis, and the LINK token went live in November of 2017 after an initial coin offering (ICO) that raised $32 million.

Since its launch, Chainlink has gone on to become the leader in the decentralized oracle space, boasting a market cap of $9 billion.

Chainlink is a decentralized oracle network (DON) that is represented by its token, $LINK. Oracles allow for off-chain data such as stock prices, weather, or sales statistics to be integrated on-chain. Oracle providers like Chainlink enable developers to build decentralized applications (dApps) that rely on access to real-world data, on any blockchain.

Chainlink runs a network of decentralized data oracles that tap into the worlds highest quality data feeds.

Many smart contracts require real world data to execute commands, however most of the data is stored in off-chain servers. Oracles are used to communicate that data to the dApps, allowing for smart contracts to function and execute commands based on off-chain data. With a singular oracle solution, there is one centralized point of failure, and manipulation of that oracle could lead to the collapse of the dApp.

Chainlink on the other hand, is a network of oracles, thus making the data transmission decentralized. The decentralized network of oracles makes information transmission from off-chain databases to smart contracts more secure and reliable than a centralized oracle.

As blockchain technology and smart contract adoption continues to grow, oracle network services are becoming increasingly necessary. Chainlink is already integrated with some of the largest projects in DeFi such as Aaver and Maker, as well as traditional companies such as the NBA and T-Mobile.

Like other cryptocurrencies LINK is subject to high volatility based on market conditions, and the markets interpretation of Chainlink.

Chainlink also faces competition from other oracle providers. Competitors such as Band Protocol, and Pyth Network also offer decentralized oracle solutions to protocols, and it is possible that a competitor usurps Chainlink.

Chainlink is necessary for smart contracts to be able to interact with real-world and off-chain data. The interaction between real world data and smart contracts allows for blockchain technology to improve existing off-chain systems.

Chainlinks decentralized nature ensures that no one oracle or node is a single point of failure. LINK is also entirely open-sourced, which allows independent developers and security firms to verify Chainlinks code, or offer help developing the network.

See the article here:

LINK (Chainlink) Explained: Your Guide to the Decentralized Oracle Network - The Defiant - DeFi News

The regulatory arm of the Banque de France, the Autorit de Contrle Prudentiel et de Rsolution (ACPR), wants to certify smart contracts. The First Deputy Governor of the Banque de France recently confirmed that work between it and the ACPR to make that process mandatory is ongoing.

Previously, the ACPR laid out several proposals for regulating decentralized finance (DeFi). These include the aforementioned certification of smart contracts, security standards for private ledgers and public blockchains, and regulating DeFi entry points such as websites.

Certification will be a formal process over and above the smart contract audits that are already commonplace. The ACPR says it wants to encourage innovation while protecting consumers (one of its mandates).

Theres already plenty of debate about whether this is over-regulation and how to tackle composability, where one smart contract is dependent on another. Theres also the question of whether anyone will bother to endure the costs of certification rather than going to another jurisdiction that doesnt require it.

Opinion: Is too much regulation a bad thing?

For much of its existence, the European Union has been criticized for over-regulating almost every industry. Many economists point to its tendency to create rules and regulations for every eventuality as one of the reasons for the Eurozones sluggish economic growth.

However, the last few years have shown us that we can no longer afford to take a Laissez-faire approach to blockchain technology, digital currencies and associated applications like smart contracts. The dozens of bridge hacks and the collapse of the LUNA/UST algorithmic stablecoin, plus the subsequent implosion of FTX and multiple hedge funds, show us that a totally hands-off approach simply does not work.

However, regulators must also be careful not to go too far the other way. A balance must be struck between giving entrepreneurs and innovators the freedom to experiment and over-regulation and the stifling effect it has on industries. The costs of burdensome regulatory compliance can lead to a situation where the big players can afford to play, and the small, scrappy startups (potential future unicorns) are forced to fold or go elsewhere.

The EU has done well to publish the MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulations, meaning there can be no debate about regulatory clarity, but it must be careful not to scare off startups and blockchain creators by imposing too many costs associated with regulatory compliance. While the ACPR is strictly a French institution and has no official role in what the EU will do, it did have a large influence on how MiCA turned out. Therefore, what it does may set precedents that have many ripple effects.

It is often said that some regulation is good, but too much regulation is as bad as none. That quote perfectly underscores the balance that must be struck in the blockchain and digital currency industry. Whether smart contract certification crosses the line into overdoing it, only time will tell.

Watch: sCrypt Hackathon students realize theres more to blockchain

New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeeks Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.

Read more:

France wants to certify smart contractsis it even possible? - CoinGeek