This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
Opbnb chain event contract address case issue #4617
Comments
lonelyIslanders
added
investigate
|
Ethers uses the EIP-55 standard for computing the checksum. I recall there was a CAIP standard that attempted to mix the Chain ID into the checksum, but I thought it was more or less defeated as a bad idea, since it would break the entire ecosystem in non-backwards compatible ways. Could it be that chain is using that checksum method? I’m unfamiliar with opBNB. Is it related to Optimism or Binance? If you have any contact with them, I’d be curious to find out more and hopefully resolve the checksum earlier than later… |
|
Oh! I take much of that back. It simply looks like the example you posted does not include a checksum at all? The explorer should be updated to use EIP-55 checksums, which should be a simple change for them to make. Same thing, if you have a contact I can reach out the them and if the source is open, can submit a PR. :) In general, I always recommend addresses be converted to checksum addresses; using ethers |
|
(moving to discussion) |
ricmoo
removed
investigate
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
Ethers Version
6.8.1
Search Terms
No response
Describe the Problem
The USDT contracts listed on opBNBScan are inconsistent with the results of log.address. In fact, the upper and lower cases are different. Although the codes can be converted into upper and lower cases and compared, it will be very confusing when encountering them for the first time. (BSC chain and ETH are normal, other chains have not been tested yet)ooking for this bug.....
(BSC and ETH chain is normal, other chains have not been tested yet)
Code Snippet
No response
Contract ABI
No response
Errors
No response
Environment
No response
Environment (Other)
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: