| rskip | title | description | status | purpose | author | layer | complexity | created |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
169 |
Rectify EXTCODEHASH implementation |
Draft |
Sca |
NPS |
Core |
2 |
2020-07 |
| RSKIP | 169 |
|---|---|
| Title | Rectify EXTCODEHASH implementation |
| Created | JUL-2020 |
| Author | NPS |
| Purpose | Sca |
| Layer | Core |
| Complexity | 2 |
| Status | Draft |
EXTCODEHASH opcode was added in RSKIP140 which in turn was modelled after EIP1052.
Because of a wrongly done implementation, test case number 1 of the RSKIP140 (the EXTCODEHASH of the account without code) was not correctly implemented: it returned 0 instead of c5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470 which is the keccack256 hash of empty data. To make things more complex, because of the implementation of MutableCacheImpl, if EXTCODEHASH was run in the same transaction that created the contract, in that case it did return c5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470 instead of zero.
Adhere to the right implementation after the activation per RSKIP140.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.,