Skip to content

Conversation

@EmelyanenkoK
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@EmelyanenkoK
Copy link
Member Author

From discussion with SpyCheese: Limited depth of chains for "fixed fees" is bad, because malicious actor may prepare chain in such a way that 1024 depth will be reached in the middle of 3rd-party protocol (DEX for instance) causing disruption of this protocol.
We may neglect issue of infinite chains with old configs and keep copy of gas-related configs in metadata_envelope: it will be deduplicated anyway and solves the problem of storing historical config param settings


- **Chain Depth Limit**: What should the chain depth limit be for applying old fees?

- **Fee Decrease Scenario**: In the case of a fee decrease, do we want to keep the old (higher) fees for running chains?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hopefully contracts do not mind that they get extra TON relative to what they expected. Given that there are no guides to nanoTON-precise fee management, this is a safe assumption.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants