I'm trying to transfer an ERC721 token, but I'm getting the error ERC721: transfer caller is not owner nor approved for the transferToken method.
Main.sol
import "./ERC721.sol";
import "./Counters.sol";
contract Main is ERC721 {
using Counters for Counters.Counter;
Counters.Counter internal _tokenIds;
address payable internal admin;
constructor() ERC721("MyToken", "TOKEN") {
admin = payable(msg.sender);
}
}
Auction.sol
import "./Main.sol";
contract Auction is Main {
struct AuctionInfo {
uint256 tokenId;
address highestBidder;
uint highestBid;
}
mapping(string => AuctionInfo) private _auctionInfo;
function createAuction(string memory id) public {
_tokenIds.increment();
uint256 newTokenId = _tokenIds.current();
_mint(msg.sender, newTokenId);
_auctionInfo[id].tokenId = newTokenId;
}
function transferToken(string memory id) public {
require(msg.sender == _auctionInfo[id].highestBidder, "You are not the highest bidder");
safeTransferFrom(address(this), _auctionInfo[id].highestBidder, _auctionInfo[id].tokenId);
}
// other methods...
}
The minting contract is this and the owner of the token is the msg.sender of the minting method if I'm not mistaken. Am I to use the approve (or setApprovalForAll) for this each time before transferring? I've tried this, payable(this), and address(this) for the safeTransferFrom method, but none seem to be working.
For example, I tried the following, but get the same revert message:
approve(address(this), _auctionInfo[id].tokenId);
this.safeTransferFrom(address(this), _auctionInfo[id].highestBidder, _auctionInfo[id].tokenId);
The main principle behind any Blockchain is that nobody on the blockchain network should be trusted, and still the transactions should happen fool proof, with no possibility of any cheating being done (barring of course of some hacking).
If you invoke the approve method from the Auction contract, then the msg.sender for the approve function in the ERC721 token contract is your auction contract address. So, in other words, your Auction Contract is trying to approve itself to sell someone else's NFTs, which is not very trustworthy.
What should really happen is that owner of the NFT should invoke the approve method of the ERC721 contract - i.e. the transaction that you send for the approve function call, should be signed by the NFT owner wallet address. This way, the msg.sender for the approve function in the ERC721 contract will be the owner of the NFT. As per the ERC721 standards, the owner of the NFT can approve anyone they want, to sell their NFT(s), as the no-trust in the network is still maintained (At least I should be able to trust myself). The approve method should be invoked from within your DAPP, before the transferToken function is invoked from the DAPP.
Hope that explains why you are unable to transfer your ERC721 tokens.
Because of the internal visibility of the ERC721._approve() function, you can effectively perform the approval for the user.
Then you'll be able to execute the safeTransferFrom(tokenOwner, receiver, tokenId) from your contract, because your contract address is approved to operate this specific token even though it belongs to the tokenOwner.
This snippet mints the token, assigning the ownership to the msg.sender. But then it also calls the _approve() function that doesn't contain any validations and simply assigns the approval of the token to the Auction address.
pragma solidity ^0.8;
import "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/token/ERC721/ERC721.sol";
contract Auction is ERC721 {
constructor() ERC721("CollectionName", "Symbol") {}
function createAuction() public {
uint256 newTokenId = 1;
_mint(msg.sender, newTokenId);
_approve(address(this), newTokenId);
}
}
You can see from the screenshot that the owner is 0x5B... (the user address) and that the token is approved for 0xd9... (the contract address).
Note: The _approve() function is internal - it can be called from the ERC721 contract and contracts deriving from it (in your case Main and Auction), but it can't be called from external contracts or end user addresses.
Related
Assuming I have a wallet, I want to authorize another wallet to send a transfer on my behalf, how do I implement the above using the following practice.
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
import 'Token.sol';
contract TransferToken{
function transferFrom(address recipient, uint amount) external {
Token token = Token(0xd9145CCE52D386f254917e481eB44e9943F3555);
token.transferFrom(msg.sender, recipient, amount);
}
}
contract Owner {
function transfer(address recipient, uint amount) external {
Token token = Token(0xd9145CCE52D386f254917e481eB44e9943F39138);
token.approve(0x617F2E2fD72FD9D5503197092aC168c91465E7f2, amount);
TransferToken transferToken = TransferToken(0x617F2E2fD72FD9D5503197092aC168c91465E7f2);
transferToken.transferFrom(recipient, amount);}}
in the above example, i am using the openZappelin implementation for ERC20 on the import (Token.sol)
now my question is this ... since I want to use a real wallet with ERC20 token how do I implement the above example, I am thinking for this I don't need the import anymore, but I don't know how to implement it without too many mistakes already, I very new to solidity and I am using remix for the above implementation
will be glad if i could get a help on this
I am trying to implement a token swap of my custom ERC20 token via UniswapV3
I use Rinkeby Ethereum network.
I deployed the token under address: 0x4646CB39EA04d4763BED770F80F0e0dE8efcdF0f
I added the liquidity to Uniswap for this token and ETH.
Now, I try to execute swap in my contract, but it doesn't work. I get the error:
Gas estimation errored with the following message (see below). The transaction execution will likely fail. Do you want to force sending?
execution reverted
My Swap.sol contract takes an address of the token to swap with ETH as a constructor parameter. When I deploy it using DAI token address, the swap works just fine.
I assume this is a Uniswap liquidity related problem, but I added liquidity manually and I can swap my token inside their app.
Contract code:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.10;
pragma abicoder v2;
import "#uniswap/v3-periphery/contracts/libraries/TransferHelper.sol";
import "#uniswap/v3-periphery/contracts/interfaces/ISwapRouter.sol";
import "#uniswap/v3-periphery/contracts/interfaces/IQuoter.sol";
contract Swap {
address private constant SWAP_ROUTER =
0xE592427A0AEce92De3Edee1F18E0157C05861564;
address private constant WETH = 0xc778417E063141139Fce010982780140Aa0cD5Ab;
address public tokenAddress;
address public immutable _owner;
ISwapRouter public immutable swapRouter;
constructor(address token) {
_owner = msg.sender;
swapRouter = ISwapRouter(SWAP_ROUTER);
tokenAddress = token;
}
function swapExactInputSingle() external payable {
require(msg.value > 0, "Must pass non 0 ETH amount");
ISwapRouter.ExactInputSingleParams memory params = ISwapRouter
.ExactInputSingleParams({
tokenIn: WETH,
tokenOut: tokenAddress,
fee: 3000,
recipient: msg.sender,
deadline: block.timestamp,
amountIn: msg.value,
amountOutMinimum: 1,
sqrtPriceLimitX96: 0
});
swapRouter.exactInputSingle{value: msg.value}(params);
}
receive() external payable {}
}
I had the same issue with the swapExactInputMultihop function on uniswap. For each pools/paths you're going through, you need to make sure you've got the correct pool fee set.
You can checkout the swap fees on the uniswap website: V3-overview/fees
or on a video tutorial, going through the whole process:
Blockchain With Wisdom on YouTube
Managed to fix it.
I set the fee: 3000 in contract, but I created liquidity with 1% fee, so I had to change it to fee: 10000 according to docs: fee The fee tier of the pool, used to determine the correct pool contract in which to execute the swap
I'm writing a contract that involves transferring an ERC-721 token from one user to another. In order to test that this works with existing NFT collections, I'm using ganache-cli to fork mainnet and impersonate the holder of the ERC-721 token in question. I've confirmed on Etherscan that the address I'm unlocking is indeed the holder of the ERC-721 token that I'm trying to transfer.
First, I'm forking mainnet using ganache-cli:
ganache-cli -f <INFURA_MAINNET_ENDPOINT> -d -i 66 1 --unlock <HOLDER_ADDRESS>
My smart contract code includes:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
interface IERC721 {
function ownerOf(uint256 _tokenId) external returns (address);
function safeTransferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _tokenId) external payable;
}
interface CryptopunkInterface {
function transferPunk(address _to, uint _tokenId) external;
}
and contains this function:
/// #dev Sells NFT into a bid (i.e., "hits" the bid)
/// #param _bidderAddress Address of the bidder
/// #param _nftAddress Address of collection to which the bid applies
/// #param _tokenId Token id of the NFT in question
/// #param _expectedWeiPriceEach Price (in wei) that seller expects to receive for each NFT
/// #return Proceeds remitted to seller
function hitBid(address _bidderAddress, address _nftAddress, uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _expectedWeiPriceEach) public returns (uint256) {
console.log("msg.sender of hitBid: ", msg.sender);
// Initialize bid
Bid memory bid = bids[_bidderAddress][_nftAddress];
// Require that bid exists
require(bid.quantity > 0, "This bid does not exist.");
// Require that bid amount is at least what the seller expects
require(bid.weiPriceEach >= _expectedWeiPriceEach, "Bid is insufficient.");
// Decrement bidder's bid quantity for this collection
bids[_bidderAddress][_nftAddress].quantity = bid.quantity - 1;
// Compute platform fee proceeds
uint256 platformFeeProceeds = bid.weiPriceEach * platformFee / 10000;
// Remit platform fee proceeds to owner
sendValue(OWNER, platformFeeProceeds);
// Transfer NFT to bidder
// Check whether _nftAddress is Cryptopunks address
if (_nftAddress == 0xb47e3cd837dDF8e4c57F05d70Ab865de6e193BBB) {
CryptopunkInterface(_nftAddress).transferPunk(_bidderAddress, _tokenId);
} else {
console.log("ownerOf NFT being sold: ", IERC721(_nftAddress).ownerOf(_tokenId));
IERC721(_nftAddress).safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, _bidderAddress, _tokenId);
}
// Compute seller proceeds
uint256 sellerProceeds = bid.weiPriceEach - platformFeeProceeds;
// Remit seller proceeds to seller
sendValue(payable(msg.sender), sellerProceeds);
// Emit new trade event
emit NewTrade(_bidderAddress, msg.sender, _nftAddress, bid.weiPriceEach, 1, _tokenId);
// Return seller proceeds
return sellerProceeds;
}
When I run truffle test, executing the function on behalf of the unlocked holder address, I get this error:
Error: Returned error: VM Exception while processing transaction: revert ERC721: transfer caller is not owner nor approved -- Reason given: ERC721: transfer caller is not owner nor approved.
UPDATE:
I switched from using ganache-cli to using Hardhat to fork mainnet. I'm impersonating the relevant addresses in my test.js file:
const BAYC_HOLDER_ADDRESS = "0x54BE3a794282C030b15E43aE2bB182E14c409C5e";
await hre.network.provider.request({
method: "hardhat_impersonateAccount",
params: [BAYC_HOLDER_ADDRESS],
});
I've also verified that msg.sender of hitBid is indeed the ownerOf the NFT in question with the console.log statements above.
msg.sender of hitBid: 0x54be3a794282c030b15e43ae2bb182e14c409c5e
ownerOf NFT being sold: 0x54be3a794282c030b15e43ae2bb182e14c409c5e
Nonetheless, I'm still getting the same error:
Error: VM Exception while processing transaction: reverted with reason string 'ERC721: transfer caller is not owner nor approved'
The reason you are getting this error is because msg.sender of hitBid() is not the same as msg.sender of IERC721(_nftAddress).safeTransferFrom().
The seller needs to sign two transactions:
The user needs to sign approve(yourContractAddress, tokenId)
The user needs to sign hitBid()
That will prevent hitBid() from reverting, since your contract address (msg.sender of safeTransferFrom()) will then be approved to make the transfer.
I have created a basic ERC20 token by implementing OpenZeppelin as follow in ERC20.sol file:
pragma solidity ^0.6.4;
import "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/v3.4.0/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol";
contract Token is ERC20 {
constructor(string memory _name, string memory _symbol)
public
ERC20(_name, _symbol)
{
_mint(msg.sender, 10000000000000000000000000000);
}
}
Then implement another contract Contract.sol as follow:
import "./ERC20.sol";
pragma solidity ^0.6.4;
contract SimpleBank{
Token tokenContract;
constructor(Token _tokenContract) public {
tokenContract = _tokenContract;
}
function deposit(uint amt) public returns (bool) {
require(amt != 0 , "deposit amount cannot be zero");
tokenContract.transfer(address(this),amt);
return true;
}
}
As, I have deployed both contract from the address 0xAb8483F64d9C6d1EcF9b849Ae677dD3315835cb2 so, it holds 10000000000000000000000000000 tokens.
But when I call deposit function from same address I got the following error:
transact to SimpleBank.deposit errored: VM error: revert. revert The
transaction has been reverted to the initial state. Reason provided by
the contract: "ERC20: transfer amount exceeds balance". Debug the
transaction to get more information.
So, what is the proper way to interact with the deployed ERC20 token so that the deploy function works.
The user address 0xAb8483... sends a transaction executing SimpleBank's function deposit(), which makes 0xAb8483... the value of msg.sender in SimpleBank.
But then SimpleBank sends an internal transaction executing Token's function transfer(). Which makes SimpleBank address (not the 0xAb8483...) the value of msg.sender in Token.
So the snippet tokenContract.transfer(address(this),amt); within SimpleBank is trying to send SimpleBank's tokens. Not the user's (0xAb8483...) tokens.
This transfer of tokens (from point 2) reverts, because SimpleBank doesn't own any tokens. Which makes the top-level transaction (from point 1) revert as well.
If you want SimpleBank to be able to transfer 0xAb8483...'s tokens, 0xAb8483... needs to approve() the tokens first to be spent by SimpleBank. Directly from their address, so that they are msg.sender in the Token contract.
Only then SimpleBank can execute transferFrom(0xAb8483..., address(this), amt) (from, to, amount).
TLDR: Your contract can't spend tokens that it doesn't own, unless the owner has manually approved your contract to spend them.
If it could spend someone else's tokens without approval, it would be very easy to steal from people who can't/don't verify your source code (by spending their USDT, WETH and other widely-used tokens).
Here is my question (basically, I want to know if I am right or mistaken):
First of all, we have standard ERC20:
contract ERC20Interface
{
function transfer(address _to, uint _value) public returns (bool success);
function transferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint _value) public returns (bool success);
function approve(address _spender, uint _value) public returns (bool success);
.....
}
Then, in a CrowdSale, we have a token, derived from it:
contract ICO is Ownable {
...
MyToken public m_token;
...
function ICO() public {
m_token = new MyToken();
...
Then the crowdsale ends. The token with list of all people (addresses) that bought it becomes "free" of crowd sale contract:
function finish() onlyOwner public {
if(goalReached()) {
m_token.transferOwnership(m_addrOwner);
My questions:
1. For this token to be traded on exchanges, I have to somehow provide these exchanges with token's address. Where should I get it?
2. Am I correct? Is it how it supposed to work?
In other words, if a token is a separate contract, passed to ICO contract by address, I can see how exchanges can trade it after the end of crowd sale: they have that same address.
But I see a lot of crowdsales on Etherscan, that create contract internally (like in code snippets above). How do I make it "tradable" after the end of a crowd sale in this case?
Thanks.
Most exchanges will only support your token if they see value in it. You'd have to contact the exchanges and they will evaluate if it's worth it to them based on the demand for your token. Even then, they will most likely ask for payment up front before listing.
For example, Bittrex has their submission process documented here. They offer free listing once you pass their verification process (along with some non-free services). Other exchanges follow a similar process.
The contract address you're looking for that you'd have to provide is returned to your client when you deploy your token contract. If you somehow lose the address in your client, you can find it on etherscan.io by searching for the token name/symbol (assuming your token contract follows the ERC20 spec) or by transaction hash. You can also retrieve the address in code:
function getTokenAddress() constant returns (address) {
return address(m_token);
}
Outside of an exchange, you can also do private transfers of tokens by simply adding the token contract address to a wallet like Mist or Parity and sending tokens between addresses.
Note that all of this is independent of the crowd sale. The crowd sale is a separate contract that is used to raise money and do the initial token distribution.