I understand shared mutable state as describing a situation in which two or more parties control the same data. If their lifetimes or execution periods overlap, this can cause an issue. But in the context of ETH, why is this an issue as long as transactions are ordered in first-in first-out basis?

  • Can you give more details of the particular situation? Having order dependent transaction is not a problem for the blockchain but it might be confusing for users.
    – Ismael
    Mar 21 at 5:50
  • Thanks so much for your response. I don't have a particular situation in mind, but was motivated to ask the question after reading other crypto project white papers that make statements about shared mutable states. Is the issue with shared mutable states that a smart contract might be rendered inoperative because it makes certain assumptions about network states that might change independently (due to the execution of a different smart contract)?
    – NeilD
    Mar 22 at 17:50
  • It is not clear to me what they mean with shared mutable state. The blockchain is shared per definition. In Ethereum contracts have mutable state but since transactions are serialized it is not really an issue. Eventually all nodes will see the same state, like any PoW blockchain you have to wait several blocks until it has enough confirmations.
    – Ismael
    Mar 23 at 4:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.