Can you elaborate?
-
-
-
ETH reentrancy happens because a vulnerable contract implements withdraw() as sending ETH before reducing the withdrawer's balance, making it possible for a malicious callback's fallback function to call withdraw again recursively. ERC223 adds a fallback function for tokens

-
So if someone out there has code like contract TokenVault { function withdraw(uint256 _amount) { require(_amount <= deposited[msg.sender]); token.transfer(msg.sender, _amount); deposited[msg.sender] -= _amount; } } then AFAICT this is now vulnerable with ERC223.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Have you looked at 777? Doesn't do anything different with regards to reentancy, but it's a better standard in general.
-
I haven't but I'll read it in full later, thanks. Skimmed it on my phone and it definitely seems like a better proposal
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.