Mint transaction rework
#1269
Assignees
Comments
|
related: FuelLabs/fuel-specs#511 |
|
This change is better to do on top of FuelLabs/fuel-vm#533 |
xgreenx
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 18, 2023
Closes #1269 This PR also adapts `fuel-core` to use `fuel-vm 0.39`. - The recipient is a `ContractId` instead of `Address`. The block producer should deploy its contract to receive the transaction fee. The collected fee is zero until the recipient contract is set. - The `Mint` transaction is reworked with new fields to support the account-base model. It affects serialization and deserialization of the transaction and also affects GraphQL schema. - I limited the number of selected transactions from the TxPool to `u16::MAX` to avoid overflow. - The `Mint` transaction is the last transaction in the block instead of the first. - Applied changes for `BlockHeight` to use `succ` and `pred` functions.
crypto523
added a commit
to crypto523/fuel-core
that referenced
this issue
Oct 7, 2024
Closes FuelLabs/fuel-core#1269 This PR also adapts `fuel-core` to use `fuel-vm 0.39`. - The recipient is a `ContractId` instead of `Address`. The block producer should deploy its contract to receive the transaction fee. The collected fee is zero until the recipient contract is set. - The `Mint` transaction is reworked with new fields to support the account-base model. It affects serialization and deserialization of the transaction and also affects GraphQL schema. - I limited the number of selected transactions from the TxPool to `u16::MAX` to avoid overflow. - The `Mint` transaction is the last transaction in the block instead of the first. - Applied changes for `BlockHeight` to use `succ` and `pred` functions.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Rework the
Minttransaction to not produce a new UTXO per each block. Instead, we can use contract's account-based model.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: