I have a question for everyone: Is the ability to customize the contract address (CA) a bug or a design feature? I’ve seen some projects indeed make efforts in this area, but I’m not quite sure about the underlying principle. Is this supported at the protocol level, or is it only possible on certain chains or through specific implementations?
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
13 Likes
Reward
13
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
LiquidityWitch
· 17h ago
CA customization? Isn't this just some projects' way of cutting leeks? Anyway, I can't see any distinctive design features.
View OriginalReply0
MultiSigFailMaster
· 17h ago
Bro, this is a "Schrödinger's bug," it depends on who's using it.
View OriginalReply0
ApeWithAPlan
· 17h ago
CA customization, to put it simply, depends on how the project team wants to play it. Those with bad intentions have already been causing trouble behind the scenes.
View OriginalReply0
gm_or_ngmi
· 17h ago
CA customization? It depends on the specific implementation of the chain. It's basically not feasible on EVM chains.
View OriginalReply0
CafeMinor
· 17h ago
CA customization? I haven't heard of this before... Can someone expert explain it?
I have a question for everyone: Is the ability to customize the contract address (CA) a bug or a design feature? I’ve seen some projects indeed make efforts in this area, but I’m not quite sure about the underlying principle. Is this supported at the protocol level, or is it only possible on certain chains or through specific implementations?