Ethereum Foundation Memperingatkan Kemungkinan Gangguan di Dompet Kripto

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-18Last updated on 2026-08-18

Abstract

Yayasan Ethereum (EF) mengeluarkan peringatan pada 17 Agustus mengenai risiko potensial pada dompet dan alat-alat perangkat lunak terkait dengan pembaruan jaringan mendatang bernama "Glamsterdam." Pembaruan ini akan mengubah model gas Ethereum, khususnya melalui implementasi EIP-8037, yang memperkenalkan dimensi "state-gas" terpisah untuk operasi yang menciptakan keadaan baru. Akibatnya, transfer ETH ke alamat baru akan dikenai biaya gas tambahan, sementara transfer ke alamat yang sudah ada akan tetap membutuhkan 21.000 unit. Perangkat lunak yang menggunakan logika lama—seperti menetapkan batas gas maksimum yang kaku, mengasumsikan 21.000 unit cukup untuk semua transfer, atau hanya menghitung biaya berdasarkan jumlah gas—berisiko tidak berfungsi dan memerlukan pembaruan. Alat-alat seperti dompet, pengindeks (indexers), dan estimator biaya mungkin terkena dampaknya. Para pengembang didesak untuk menguji sistem mereka di testnet publik "Plataberget," yang diluncurkan 13 Agustus. Aktivasi Glamsterdam di testnet ini dijadwalkan pada 20 Agustus, diikuti fase umpan balik dan pembaruan perangkat lunak klien selama sekitar satu bulan sebelum pengujian lebih lanjut di jaringan testnet Sepolia dan Holesky.

Pembaruan mendatang Glamsterdam akan mengubah model gas, dan sebagian perangkat lunak berisiko mengalami kerusakan. Hal ini diperingatkan oleh tim Ethereum Foundation (EF) pada 17 Agustus.

Menurut para pengembang, dompet, pengindeks, dan alat penaksir biaya mungkin akan terdampak. Para pemrogram diminta untuk menguji sistem mereka di testnet publik Plataberget.

EF menekankan pada alat-alat dengan "batas maksimum gas yang ditetapkan secara kaku": solusi seperti itu, menurut mereka, akan berhenti bekerja dan memerlukan pembaruan.

Masalah ini terkait dengan EIP-8037. Proposal ini menambahkan dimensi state-gas terpisah untuk operasi yang menciptakan status baru. Transfer biasa $ETH ke alamat yang sudah ada akan mempertahankan biaya 21.000 unit, tetapi pengiriman koin ke alamat baru akan menghasilkan biaya tambahan.

Para pengembang mendesak untuk meninjau ulang kontrak pintar yang berasumsi bahwa jumlah 21.000 unit mencakup semua transfer $ETH, serta kode yang hanya menghitung biaya berdasarkan jumlah gas.

Menurut data Forkcast, Plataberget diluncurkan pada 13 Agustus 2026. Aktivasi Glamsterdam di testnet ini direncanakan pada 20 Agustus. Sebelum peluncuran di jaringan utama, akan ada fase umpan balik dan pembaruan perangkat lunak klien, yang diperkirakan berlangsung selama satu bulan, setelah itu akan dilanjutkan dengan pengujian di Sepolia dan Hoodi.

Sumber: Forkcast.

Sebagai pengingat, pada bulan Agustus, Buterin menyebut perlindungan kuantum dan AI sebagai prioritas Ethereum.

Evolusi Senyap: Mengapa Paus Membeli Ethereum sambil Menantikan Glamsterdam dan Hegota
end-content

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QMengapa Ethereum Foundation memperingatkan tentang potensi gangguan di dompet kripto?

AEthereum Foundation memperingatkan tentang potensi gangguan karena pembaruan jaringan yang akan datang, Glamsterdam, akan mengubah model gas. Perangkat lunak dengan 'batas maksimum gas yang ditetapkan secara kaku' berisiko berhenti bekerja dan memerlukan pembaruan.

QApa yang dimaksud dengan EIP-8037 dan dampaknya terhadap biaya transaksi?

AEIP-8037 adalah proposal yang menambahkan dimensi terpisah 'state-gas' untuk operasi yang membuat keadaan baru. Pengiriman $ETH ke alamat yang sudah ada tetap berbiaya 21.000 unit, tetapi pengiriman ke alamat baru akan dikenakan biaya tambahan.

QApa yang disarankan Ethereum Foundation kepada pengembang untuk mempersiapkan pembaruan Glamsterdam?

AEthereum Foundation menyarankan pengembang untuk menguji sistem mereka di testnet publik Plataberget dan meninjau ulang kontrak pintar yang mengasumsikan biaya 21.000 unit mencakup semua transfer $ETH atau kode yang hanya menghitung biaya berdasarkan jumlah gas.

QKapan testnet Plataberget diluncurkan dan kapan Glamsterdam dijadwalkan diaktifkan di dalamnya?

ATestnet Plataberget diluncurkan pada 13 Agustus 2026. Aktivasi Glamsterdam di testnet ini dijadwalkan pada 20 Agustus 2026.

QApa langkah-langkah yang akan dilakukan sebelum peluncuran Glamsterdam di jaringan utama Ethereum?

ASebelum peluncuran di jaringan utama, akan ada fase umpan balik dan pembaruan perangkat lunak klien yang diperkirakan berlangsung satu bulan, diikuti dengan pengujian di jaringan testnet Sepolia dan Hoodi.

Related Reads

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

Jameson Lopp's analysis concludes that BIP-110, a proposal to restrict arbitrary data (like inscriptions) on Bitcoin, failed due to economic and technical realities, not moral arguments. The proposal, championed by Luke Dashjr and others, aimed to "cleanse" the chain but never reached its 55% miner activation threshold. Upon its forced signaling deadline in August, only the OCEAN pool (with ~1% hash rate) supported it, creating a short-lived fork that quickly died as miners faced unredeemable block rewards. Lopp's earlier predictions about its economic infeasibility were proven correct. Technically, BIP-110 was flawed; workarounds to embed data compliant with its rules were demonstrated almost immediately, proving it couldn't achieve its stated goal. The debate often devolved into moralistic rhetoric, with supporters accusing opponents of supporting child exploitation material—a tactic Lopp criticizes as ineffective for building consensus. Lopp argues Bitcoin is driven by incentives and game theory, not morality. Past forks like Bitcoin Cash promised economic benefits, while BIP-110 offered only restrictions and reduced miner fees, gaining no substantial support from major economic players. He predicts the "puritans" behind the failed fork will continue complaining but their new chain will remain insignificant. The episode reaffirms that attempting to censor data on a permissionless, anti-censorship network like Bitcoin is a futile battle.

marsbit50m ago

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

marsbit50m ago

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

Securitize's first quarterly report post-IPO reveals a paradox: while its tokenized assets under management hit a record $4.3 billion (up 16% YoY) and platform trading volume surged 147% to $5.3 billion, total revenue fell 5% to $14.4 million. Tokenization revenue specifically dropped ~12% to $7.8 million, leading to an adjusted EBITDA loss of $5.5 million. CFO Francisco Flores explained that most trading volume is not yet monetized, with the majority of tokenization revenue still coming from one-time projects like new protocol integrations. In contrast, asset servicing revenue, a more recurring stream, grew slightly to $6.6 million. The company has lowered its full-year revenue guidance to $70-$80 million from an initial projection of $110 million. Industry experts note this highlights a structural challenge for the tokenization sector. Scaling assets on-chain doesn't automatically scale a profitable business model. Current implementations often rely on costly, customized projects for each new asset or jurisdiction. The future, they argue, lies in building standardized infrastructure that generates recurring "infrastructure revenue" from post-issuance activities like compliance, distributions, and secondary trading—similar to enterprise software. Analysts caution against misinterpreting high trading volumes as indicative of a mature fee-based model, as Securitize's broad volume metric includes many non-monetized actions. The key test for the industry is whether adding billions in new assets can generate sustainable revenue without constant new custom projects.

marsbit52m ago

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

marsbit52m ago

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

**Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence** Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era filled with paradoxes, which we navigate as we advance. **1. The Prediction Paradox** AI experts, from pioneers like Marvin Minsky to contemporary figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis, have a history of inaccurate forecasts regarding AI's capabilities and timelines, such as achieving human-level machine intelligence or surpassing radiologists. Predictions about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) vary wildly between optimistic entrepreneurs and skeptical academics, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of technological futures. **2. The Employment Quantification Paradox** Despite numerous studies from institutions like the OECD, IMF, and McKinsey attempting to quantify AI's impact on jobs, estimates of affected employment range from 0.4% to 67%, revealing vast inconsistencies. This paradox arises because isolating AI's effect from other economic, social, and technological factors is virtually impossible, and forecasts depend on static assumptions about a dynamically evolving technology. **3. The Productivity Paradox** While AI is a transformative General Purpose Technology, significant productivity growth has not yet materialized in major economies like the EU and has only matched historical averages in the US. This disconnect between rapid innovation and slow productivity gains, reminiscent of the "Solow Paradox" from the computer age, is often explained by time lags. History shows it takes decades for such technologies to diffuse and trigger complementary innovations that boost productivity. **4. The Data Value Paradox** Data is hailed as the "new oil" and critical for AI, yet its economic value is paradoxical. Its worth is realized only in use, not in straightforward trade. Despite policy emphasis and initiatives for data asset recognition on corporate balance sheets in China, the monetized value remains negligible—accounting for only about 0.06% of major telecom operators' total assets—highlighting the gap between perceived utility and financial valuation. **5. The Industrial Revolution Paradox** For decades, nearly every major new technology, from the internet and nanotechnology to blockchain and now AI, has been proclaimed as the driver of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution." This constant reassignment suggests prior labels were premature. True industrial revolutions are typically identified in hindsight, not in real-time. Furthermore, the coexistence of such a proclaimed transformative revolution with ongoing economic crises would be historically anomalous. Whether AI truly defines a new industrial revolution remains a narrative for the future to decide.

marsbit55m ago

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

marsbit55m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片