You would still need to call an RPC provider, but you could get responses that include merkle proofs (for certain requests). This means you wouldn’t need to call multiple RPC providers to increase security. However, depending on the call you need to make, you might need a lot more calls, and AFAIK you can’t get proofs for log inclusion yet (ckETH currently relies on listening for event logs), but there is ongoing work in the Ethereum community for better Light Client support.
2 Likes
Btw, have you seen that there is a PoC of Helios running in a canister?
2 Likes
Thank you so much i will take a look into it
ERC20 withdraw is stuck, problem from RPC nodes?
Yes, see the minter’s logs:
{“timestamp”:1718397532829896092,“priority”:“Info”,“file”:“rs/ethereum/cketh/minter/src/deposit.rs”,“line”:385,“message”:“Failed to get the latest finalized block number: ConsistentHttpOutcallError(IcError { code: SysTransient, message: "Canister http responses were different across replicas, and no consensus was reached" })”,“counter”:5405}
One of the providers returns a deviating result, so the minter keeps trying until consistent results are delivered.
1 Like
Quick update: we still have a couple of transactions stuck. Why?
This issue is an unfortunate combination of two independent problems that have overlapped yesterday: first one of the RPC providers returned inconsistent results, then the fees have spiked and still didn’t come down (see the gas heat map over the last 24h: https://beaconcha.in/gasnow).
The problem will definitely resolve itself as soon as fees go down a bit more.
Why are some of the transactions getting processed?
This is because when a transaction is created, the fee is estimated according to the current fee and gets attached to the transaction (because a corresponding amount of ckETH was burned already). When some people created their TXs yesterday, the fee was low, but the minter could not process these transaction because of the aforementioned error regarding the RPC providers. So now it always retries, but discovers a much higher fee and then puts these transactions back to the end of the queue.
Sorry for the inconvenience everyone! We’re already working on making the minter more resilient, but it will take time.
2 Likes
When I try to mint ckETH from ETH following the outlined steps in the documentation using Etherscan to call the deposit method of the helper smart contract, it works fine, but when I try to implement this with code, that is, calling the smart contract from my code, I receive an error that the transaction fails because of this very huge gas fee that is required. I am most likely missing something here because it does the same thing for ckUSDC as well.
It seems like you’re not creating a valid transaction with sufficient gas attached, which your wallet does for you if you call the smart contract via etherscan.
Hi Manu,
Apologies if this has already been addressed, but is it possible to add ckstETH? Thanks!
Hi everyone 
!
A couple of updates regarding ckERC20:
- Simplify adding new ckERC20 tokens. After having written a few proposals to add new ckERC20 tokens and communication with the community (e.g., see Proposal to add OCT as a new ckERC20 token), we realized that the arguments for the ledger suite orchestrator to add a new token could be greatly simplified. This requires, however, an upgrade of the ledger suite orchestrator, which is planed by proposal 131373 (that proposal also plans on upgrading the managed ledger suites, see the proposal summary for more details). If the proposal is executed, any token afterwards will be able to use the new simplified syntax, as shown in the documentation on Adding a new ckERC20 token.
- Add new ckERC20 token: ckUSDT
. Proposal 131374 plans on adding ckUSDT, the twin token of USDT, which should be executed after proposal 131373, since it uses the new simplified syntax mentioned above.
12 Likes
Yes circle’s faucet seems to fail the first few times you try acquiring sepolia USDC, I had to try like 5 more times for it to work on my end.
1 Like
I’m sure everyone saw here the news on wBTC (on Ethereum) having a new structure to its custodian with Bitgo. Amazing how big wBTC is given how vulnerable wBTC is…
In any case, it got me wondering what the plans are to introduce ckBTC on Ethereum to compete with wBTC. It would also be great to have ckBTC on Solana etc etc, and for it all to be managed inside of Oisy.
Is this the current plan @peterparker ?
2 Likes
There was an idea to bring CkICP to the Ethereum network as an ERC20 token. Could this concept be applied to bring ckBTC to ERC20 as well?
1 Like
Absolutely no idea. The others in this thread have probably more insight.
There are up and coming SNS projects working on this. @Bitomni is one → Upcoming Bitomni SNS decentralization sale - #36 by Bitomni
There’s also a very interesting project currently being designed/prototyped called Supersolid → x.com
2 Likes
ckBTC may be technically superior to Coinbase’s cbBTC, but once cbBTC becomes mainstream, ckBTC may not be used. There isn’t much time left.
Why don’t they create an ERC20 token?
2 Likes
Looks like we have connection problem with ankr lasted a couple of hours already.
Hi @Gotcha
You are correct. There is currently an IPv6 connectivity problem with rpc.ankr.com. This is readily visible in the logs as you probably have seen
ConsistentHttpOutcallError(IcError { code: SysTransient, message: \"Connecting to rpc.ankr.com failed: Failed to directly connect: client error (Connect)\" })
A quick dig shows that there is currently no AAAA record for rpc.ankr.com.
dig AAAA rpc.ankr.com
; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> AAAA rpc.ankr.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 3303
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;rpc.ankr.com. IN AAAA
...
We opened a ticket by Ankr and they seem to be responsive, so let’s hope that the problem is soon fixed 
.
1 Like
The problem still persists and the pending erc token deposit requests are piling up, did ankr provide any ETA? Or will we replace the rpc like we did last time?
Just heard back from Ankr regarding an ETA for their fix
_Alright so speaking with our engineers, it will take roughly up to a month to complete.
So expect a proposal to replace that provider soon.
1 Like