5 ms·
Congratulations! I agree, it needs to be much more cost-effective. Someone In The Know told me that there's some attempts being made to make it more cost-effec
by basicallydan 6y ago
Congratulations!
I agree, it needs to be much more cost-effective. Someone In The Know told me that there's some attempts being made to make it more cost-effective with something called Optimism (https://twitter.com/optimismPBC https://twitter.com/optimismPBC) - but after looking into it, it does seem like you'd need to buy tokens. I specifically wanted this Game of Life to be driven by ETH!
You don't need to share of course but I am curious - is your contract a more "legitimate" use than mine? Something which is a genuine utility?
Thanks for reading btw!
- jhunter1016 6y agoI think utility is all relative. Your contract has utility among those who want to use it. It’s sort of like what my dad used to tell me about baseball cards: they’re only valuable if someone wants to pay you for them. My contract was more traditional. We needed to mint NFT and sell them in a single transaction. Normally an NFT is minted and transferred then the user can sell it to other people later. In our case, we were selling a very specific asset that demanded payment before (or at the same time) as the NFT was being minted. So I wrote an ERC721 contract that also included Escrow payment capabilities. It was definitely a good experience, but if I was doing this on my own and not for my job, there’s no way I’d pay almost $300 to deploy a smart contract.