what is wrong with this token contract?

This one: https://etherscan.io/address/0xc12d1c73ee7dc3615ba4e37e4abfdbddfa38907e As you can see most of the last transfer fail, the transfer function is: function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) public canTransfer returns (bool) { require(recipient != address(this), “can’t transfer tokens to the contract address”); _transfer(msg.sender, recipient, amount); return true; } //going further: function _transfer(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) internal { require(sender…

Contract with a method to send received erc20 token to two different owner addresses

Was wondering if there is already an open source solidity code with method to sweep erc20 tokens received in contract address to destination address by calling an in-contract method such as “sweep()”. The objective is to sweep received erc20 tokens in the contract to two pre-defined wallet addresses, by calling the method in the contract.…

BitcoinAverage has just stopped offering free access to their API. What now?

Today, BitcoinAverage silently stopped supporting “unauthenticated” requests to their API, unexpectedly breaking my whole system which relied on this data. I’ve been using them for a long time to get the current Bitcoin price in various fiat currencies. The requests now all return: Unauthenticated requests are not allowed. Take out a new plan or start…

(ncdns) Trying to resolve .bit domain via dig command, but doesn’t get an answer

i’m trying to resolve the namecoin domain easyminer.bit with ncdns. The domain is active: { “name”: “d/easyminer”, “name_encoding”: “utf8”, “value”: “{onehundrednmcpername@protonmail.com}”, “value_encoding”: “ascii”, “txid”: “23fa46110ab90ba654613774c2c01eb524ab300c3863623b3e6a9388cd479fad”, “vout”: 1, “address”: “NDxY6mrSYdsTsEYRmA1SNFptW6GCsjuAps”, “height”: 474143, “expires_in”: 18649, “expired”: false, “ismine”: false }, When i use the command dig @127.0.0.1 -p 1025 easyminer.bit NS I get no answers back though,…

Could Taproot create larger security risks or even hinder future protocol adjustments re Quantum threats?

I am quoting here a user named “blk014” who responded to Pieter’s Taproot tweets from 24JAN. I find this user’s comments very interesting and would like to ask a developer expert how much of a security issue this “Schnorr’s linearity” can be in the future process of finding quantum resistant solutions? And how possibly mitigate…