Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Blockchain CBDE Exam - Topic 2 Question 86 Discussion

Actual exam question for Blockchain's CBDE exam
Question #: 86
Topic #: 2
[All CBDE Questions]

When considering smart contracts and the blockchain it's good:

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Minna at Apr 25, 2024, 09:32 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CBDE Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
India
5 months ago
Surprised anyone would choose A. That sounds risky!
upvoted 0 times
...
Janine
5 months ago
Totally agree with B! Easier to manage and test that way.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melinda
5 months ago
C is interesting, but can we really trust traditional systems?
upvoted 0 times
...
Miesha
6 months ago
A sounds like a nightmare. Complexity isn't always better.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacquline
6 months ago
I think B makes the most sense. Keep it simple!
upvoted 0 times
...
Dianne
6 months ago
I recall a debate in class about the trade-offs of complexity versus maintainability, and I lean towards option B for simplicity in smart contracts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Celestina
6 months ago
I feel like option C could be a good compromise, focusing on Ether transfers while keeping other logic off-chain. But I'm not completely confident about that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Roslyn
6 months ago
I think we practiced a question similar to this, and the answer was about only moving essential parts to the blockchain. It makes sense for readability and testing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desirae
7 months ago
I remember discussing how moving everything to the blockchain could lead to unnecessary complexity, but I'm not sure if that's always a bad thing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shenika
7 months ago
I'm pretty confident that Option B is the way to go. Minimizing the blockchain footprint while still taking advantage of its capabilities is usually the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blair
7 months ago
Option C makes the most sense to me. Keeping the Ether transfers on the blockchain while leaving the other logic off seems like a good way to get the benefits without the complexity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
7 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not sure if I fully understand the tradeoffs between the different options. I'll need to think this through carefully before deciding.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mozell
7 months ago
I think the key here is to balance the benefits of the blockchain with the complexity it can introduce. Option B seems like the best approach - only move the essential parts to the blockchain and keep the rest in traditional systems.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adela
7 months ago
Okay, let me think this through step-by-step. The key seems to be preventing incorrect information from populating the FDB of VPLS 1. I'll need to consider the options and choose the one that best addresses that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nieves
7 months ago
Hmm, this looks like a tricky networking question. I'll need to carefully read through the options and think about the Exadata X9M-2 Database Server's specifications.
upvoted 0 times
...
Curt
7 months ago
This seems pretty straightforward. I'd just grab the SSID from the return_val data and pass it directly to the send_to_application function. Shouldn't take more than a few lines of code to get this done.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audry
11 months ago
B all the way. I don't want to be the one trying to debug a blockchain-powered grocery list, you know?
upvoted 0 times
Earleen
10 months ago
Daron: Definitely, debugging a blockchain-powered grocery list does not sound like fun.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daron
10 months ago
User 2: Yeah, it's important to avoid unnecessary complexity when it comes to smart contracts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
11 months ago
User 1: I agree, keeping it simple with just the necessary parts on the blockchain makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Vernice
12 months ago
Alright, who's the comedian that suggested option A? That's just asking for trouble, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
upvoted 0 times
Dan
11 months ago
Loise: Definitely, we don't want to overcomplicate things by moving everything to the blockchain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loise
11 months ago
User 2: I agree, keeping it simple and only using the blockchain when necessary makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gary
11 months ago
User 1: Option B seems like the most practical approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Fannie
12 months ago
Whoa, option A? Are we trying to create a blockchain monster here? No thank you, I'll take B and keep things simple.
upvoted 0 times
Marti
11 months ago
Herminia: Exactly, no need to complicate things by moving everything onto the blockchain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Herminia
11 months ago
User 2: Yeah, keeping it simple with just the necessary parts on the blockchain makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
12 months ago
User 1: I agree, option B seems more practical and less overwhelming.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lashaunda
1 year ago
C seems like the sweet spot to me. Keep the Ether transfers on the blockchain, but let the rest live in a traditional system. Best of both worlds!
upvoted 0 times
Francisca
10 months ago
True, having a balance between security and simplicity is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gracia
11 months ago
It could be, but it might also make the smart contracts more complex and harder to maintain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenita
12 months ago
But wouldn't it be more secure to have everything on the same system?
upvoted 0 times
...
Frederica
12 months ago
I agree, keeping only the Ether transfers on the blockchain makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Yoko
1 year ago
Definitely B. Why complicate things when you can just put the critical stuff on the blockchain and keep the rest in a regular database? Efficiency, people!
upvoted 0 times
Carol
12 months ago
I think it's important to carefully consider what really needs to be on the blockchain to avoid unnecessary complexity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keith
12 months ago
I agree, keeping it simple is key. Plus, it makes it easier for others to understand the smart contract.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Beth
1 year ago
I think option B is the way to go. Putting everything on the blockchain just sounds like a headache waiting to happen.
upvoted 0 times
Yen
12 months ago
Yeah, option B seems like the most practical choice for smart contracts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ira
12 months ago
Option C seems like a good compromise, focusing on value-transfer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delmy
12 months ago
I think option A could work too, but it might be too much to handle.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marica
1 year ago
I agree, keeping it simple with option B makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
William
1 year ago
I see both sides, but I lean towards option C. Keeping only Ether transfers on the blockchain seems like a good balance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ena
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe option A is better. Having everything on the same system makes it easier to maintain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shala
1 year ago
I think option B is the best approach. We shouldn't overcrowd the blockchain with unnecessary logic.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel