Migration costs should be cheaper (half price?)

[igormcoelho]

In my opinion, Migration is very useful for fixing bugs, so it should be cheaper than a regular deploy (but still expensive to not create frankstein lifelong contracts). Is it reasonable to propose half the price on migrations?

[igormcoelho]

Do you have any thoughts on this @shargon ?

[vncoelho]

I also agree, Igor.

It would be hard to really count with the goodwill of everyone to use Migrate for the same price.

On the other hand, Aigor, we could have a rule, if Migrating with an AVM with lower size than the previous one.
Because the AVM could now be something very very more complex and people just keep selling their previous SC ownership's. 🗡️
HAuehauehauhueaea

[igormcoelho]

Yeah, that's true Vitor... but if it's a NEP5 for example, no one will trust a contract with a general migration scheme (it could be very easy for the owner to steal any kind of tokens). So, in general migration assumes trusts and risk, which can be smaller than the risk of bugs (the main intention of migration I believe). I also believe most cases will increase the AVM (to include the bugfix), so it's hard to reduce... although that would be good certainly.

[vncoelho]

That is right.

There could be other mechanisms for thinking about these cases in which Migration was done improperly.

[erikzhang]

The pricing structure will be adjusted in NEO 3.0, please wait for the new white paper.

[shargon]

Could be cheaper, but like this

var dif=(OldContractSize-NewContractSize)

This ensure that you don't create a contract with few bytes, and then you use migration for fill the contract

[erikzhang]

See #286