You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
An "extra" charge should be levied when deploying contract. Such a charge should likely be proportional to the amount of bytes of the contract's bytecode, and be charged to the transaction in gas points. A transaction that cannot pay for this amount should be considered invalid and fail.
Preverification should also be employed, yet the main mechanism should be on block acceptance - if a transaction can't possibly pay for itself, it should never be executed, and the block considered invalid.
Possible solution design or implementation
After implementing #1882, it should be possible to do this, charge amount calculation being based entirely on the contents of the new deployment transaction type.
Additional context
This is in the context of contract deployments #1071.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Proposed approach is based on the bytecode length - the charge is equal bytecode length in bytes times the GAS_PER_DEPLOY_BYTE constant (set to 100 at the time of writing) times the current price of gas.
Summary
An "extra" charge should be levied when deploying contract. Such a charge should likely be proportional to the amount of bytes of the contract's bytecode, and be charged to the transaction in gas points. A transaction that cannot pay for this amount should be considered invalid and fail.
Preverification should also be employed, yet the main mechanism should be on block acceptance - if a transaction can't possibly pay for itself, it should never be executed, and the block considered invalid.
Possible solution design or implementation
After implementing #1882, it should be possible to do this, charge amount calculation being based entirely on the contents of the new deployment transaction type.
Additional context
This is in the context of contract deployments #1071.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: