Skip to main content

Why Is the 2,300 Gas Limit Sometimes Considered a Design Flaw?

The 2,300 gas limit on transfer and send is considered a design flaw because the gas costs of opcodes can change over time through Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs). An EIP could increase the gas cost of a basic operation, causing a previously safe contract's fallback function to run out of gas and revert, even when not malicious.

This introduces an unexpected denial-of-service risk for legitimate contract interactions.

Can a Contract without a Fallback Function Still Participate in a Reentrancy Attack?
Why Was the 2,300 Gas Limit Considered a “Safe” Amount against Reentrancy?
Why Are Fallback Functions Critical in a Reentrancy Scenario?
What Is the Role of a Fallback Function in Facilitating a Reentrancy Attack?