BlackFriday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Blockchain Exam CBDE Topic 4 Question 101 Discussion

Actual exam question for Blockchain's CBDE exam
Question #: 101
Topic #: 4
[All CBDE Questions]

Using selfdestruct(beneficiary) with the beneficiary being a contract without a payable fallback function:

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Monroe
1 months ago
I'll go with Option A. It's the only one that actually makes sense from a technical standpoint. The other options seem like they were written by people who don't really understand how Solidity works.
upvoted 0 times
...
Roy
2 months ago
Haha, Option C is just silly. Selfdestruct definitely sends ether, it's not just a way to change ownership. These options are getting more and more ridiculous!
upvoted 0 times
Nan
12 days ago
C) selfdestruct doesn't send anything to a contract, it just re-assigns the owner of the contract to a new person. Sending ether must be done outside of selfdestruct.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ilene
16 days ago
Haha, Option C is just silly. Selfdestruct definitely sends ether, it's not just a way to change ownership. These options are getting more and more ridiculous!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavonne
18 days ago
B) it's impossible to secure a contract against receiving ether, because selfdestruct will always send ether to the address in the argument. This is a design decision of the Ethereum platform.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laquanda
1 months ago
Haha, Option C is just silly. Selfdestruct definitely sends ether, it's not just a way to change ownership. These options are getting more and more ridiculous!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lizette
1 months ago
A) will throw an exception, because the fallback function is non-payable and thus cannot receive ether.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annabelle
1 months ago
B) it's impossible to secure a contract against receiving ether, because selfdestruct will always send ether to the address in the argument. This is a design decision of the Ethereum platform.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsay
1 months ago
A) will throw an exception, because the fallback function is non-payable and thus cannot receive ether.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Erasmo
2 months ago
I think the answer is C, because selfdestruct only re-assigns the owner of the contract.
upvoted 0 times
...
Abel
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is B. Ethereum platform always sends ether to the address in the argument.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chau
2 months ago
I think Option B is the right answer. Ethereum's design doesn't allow you to prevent a contract from receiving ether through selfdestruct, it's a fundamental feature.
upvoted 0 times
Val
1 months ago
I think Option B is the right answer. Ethereum's design doesn't allow you to prevent a contract from receiving ether through selfdestruct, it's a fundamental feature.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodolfo
2 months ago
B) it's impossible to secure a contract against receiving ether, because selfdestruct will always send ether to the address in the argument. This is a design decision of the Ethereum platform.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tu
2 months ago
A) will throw an exception, because the fallback function is non-payable and thus cannot receive ether.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Arlie
2 months ago
I think the answer is A, because the fallback function is non-payable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dominic
2 months ago
Option A is correct. The fallback function must be payable to receive ether from selfdestruct, otherwise it will throw an exception.
upvoted 0 times
Dick
2 months ago
User Comment: Option A is correct. The fallback function must be payable to receive ether from selfdestruct, otherwise it will throw an exception.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tyisha
2 months ago
A) will throw an exception, because the fallback function is non-payable and thus cannot receive ether.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel