Skip to content

Conversation

@smiasojed
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@smiasojed smiasojed marked this pull request as ready for review January 22, 2026 12:38
@pkhry
Copy link

pkhry commented Jan 22, 2026

dq: what's the difference between this PR's precise storage_deposit funding of etched accounts and just setting max amount like here #495?

@filip-parity
Copy link

filip-parity commented Jan 23, 2026

dq: what's the difference between this PR's precise storage_deposit funding of etched accounts and just setting max amount like here #495?

Genuinely curious why we do it this way too because 495 basically solved this issue

@smiasojed
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dq: what's the difference between this PR's precise storage_deposit funding of etched accounts and just setting max amount like here #495?

Genuinely curious why we do it this way too because 495 basically solved this issue

I think that in the previous PR there were incorrect assumption. The contract does not pay for storage allocation by itself — the caller always pays for it. The evm balance now is also not changed so vm.deal and balance checks are not affected.

@smiasojed smiasojed merged commit 5f69b6f into master Jan 24, 2026
176 of 209 checks passed
@smiasojed smiasojed deleted the sm/found-etch branch January 24, 2026 22:29
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.

5 participants