Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
You can run out of gas, and it’s a security feature.
What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
It minimizes the times a user has to interact with smart contracts, therefore minimizing user errors.
What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
He didn’t exactly know where the money should go, to the other participant, to himself or to a charity.
That users should not really need to interact with the smart contract more than they absolutely have to as people new to smart contracts tend to make mistakes.
Trying to find the best solution for returning the funds to them, or whether to send to a charity address or a different address (ie. the writer). Also, it showed that users were not fully committed to participating in the first place.
Using the push design has a couple of drawbacks, firstly it can lead to execution of a fallback function, having a lot of logic in a function can also lead to running out of gas to run said function.
Users new to smart contract tend to make mistakes when interacting with smart contract and as such, do dont have to interact with it more than they have to.
Its difficult getting the people to withdraw because some didnt know how to, or are lazy to.
1. Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
Because you could run out of gas or sending eth to an unknown address could cause security problems such as fallback functions.
2. What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
User experience. Users should not have to interact with smart contracts more than necessary.
3. What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
A bit over half are in favour of an implementation of a push but some are only in favour if it doesn´t cause too much of a cost. About 30% prefer pull.
- Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
Because it could run out of gas, and sending to unknown address could have security vulnerabilities.
- What’s the writer’s argument against the “pull” design?
It’s a bad user experience.
- What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
I’m not sure I understand the question, but if people don’t withdraw their money, it then has to be decided where that unclaimed money goes.
Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
You could run out of gas or open the contract to security vulnerabilities; it it better to let the users withdraw the funds.
What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
There is an extra cost for the recipient.
What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
Every Ether transfer implies potential code execution. The receiving address can implement a fallback function that can throw an error. Thus, we should never trust that a send call will execute without error.
You could run out of gas and it could create a potential security threat
The user could make a mistake
People didn’t withdraw their own money themselves
- Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
Because it can be dangerous, smart contract can accidentally call malicious/vulnerable smart contract
- What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
The UX issues. A lot of respondents didn’t withdraw their money at all.
- What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
Hi, these are my answers:
1. Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
2. What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
3. What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
because the calls could fail accidently and leave your contract exposed to vulnerability
Users either did not know how exactly to retrieve funds or never did so.
He did not know what to do with the abandoned funds. it was either keep, donate, or hold forever.
you could run out of gas and it could lead to security vulnerabilities
people are leaving ether in the smart contract, ux is hurting, and people new to smart contract interaction tend to make mistakes
He asked the users if they want to give it to charity should he just send it to himself or send them funds back but with a fee because he didn’t know what to do with it after the coolingPeriod
1. Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
You could run into a problem where you run out of gas or open yourself up to security issues.
2. What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
The writer suggests we should minimize user interaction with contracts, especially new users who may be more prone to make mistakes.
3. What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
The writer was unsure how the unclaimed money should be spent - donated, sent to specific accounts, or kept for himself.
Could be a malicious contract or person that you are sending your money to. Additionally, in case the prize is small, it can be classified as dust attack and in case the person has committed any illegal activities and is caught, Finally, sending money to many different addresses can cost a lot of gas.
Not everyone claims their rewards - although most did and due to the technology and experience being new, people may be afraid to make a mistake
Where to send the leftover money
This could lead to security vulnerabilities when sending to unknown addresses and the function could ran out of gas.
Users should not interact with smart contracts more than they absolutely have. Beginners can make more mistakes, if they are interacting with smart contract many times.
They were lazy or they forgot to withdraw the money.
Why shouldn’t you just send people their ether directly (push)?
Any transfer of funds is a potential vulnerability, as we don’t know who is receiving the funds. A receiving contract could potentially execute malicious code upon receiving the funds.
What’s the writers argument against the “pull” design?
Forcing the users to make additional interactions with the contracts is risky as it creates more chances for errors.
What problem did the writer find with people not withdrawing their money?
The writer was unsure of what to do with the unclaimed funds.