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

When considering smart contracts and the blockchain it's good:
C) to move those parts to the blockchain that deal with Ether transfers. All other parts can remain in traditional database systems. This way only the value-transfer is on the blockchain.
A) to move all existing logic to the blockchain, so everything runs on the same system. This way it might be more complex, but easier to maintain.
B) to move only those parts to the blockchain that really need the blockchain. This way smart contracts can be easier to read, easier to test and are not so complex.

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
6 months ago
Surprised anyone would choose A. That sounds risky!
upvoted 0 times
...
Janine
7 months ago
Totally agree with B! Easier to manage and test that way.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melinda
7 months ago
C is interesting, but can we really trust traditional systems?
upvoted 0 times
...
Miesha
7 months ago
A sounds like a nightmare. Complexity isn't always better.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacquline
7 months ago
I think B makes the most sense. Keep it simple!
upvoted 0 times
...
Dianne
7 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
1 year 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
12 months ago
Daron: Definitely, debugging a blockchain-powered grocery list does not sound like fun.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daron
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, it's important to avoid unnecessary complexity when it comes to smart contracts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
1 year ago
User 1: I agree, keeping it simple with just the necessary parts on the blockchain makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Vernice
1 year 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
1 year ago
Loise: Definitely, we don't want to overcomplicate things by moving everything to the blockchain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loise
1 year ago
User 2: I agree, keeping it simple and only using the blockchain when necessary makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gary
1 year ago
User 1: Option B seems like the most practical approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Fannie
1 year 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
1 year ago
Herminia: Exactly, no need to complicate things by moving everything onto the blockchain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Herminia
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, keeping it simple with just the necessary parts on the blockchain makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
1 year 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
12 months ago
True, having a balance between security and simplicity is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gracia
1 year ago
It could be, but it might also make the smart contracts more complex and harder to maintain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenita
1 year ago
But wouldn't it be more secure to have everything on the same system?
upvoted 0 times
...
Frederica
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year ago
Yeah, option B seems like the most practical choice for smart contracts.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ira
1 year ago
Option C seems like a good compromise, focusing on value-transfer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delmy
1 year 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