daweth
daweth
They use v1 I think. You can see here: https://etherscan.io/address/wyvernexchange.eth#writeContract
Why is logographic characters >> cryptography in this use case? If you want to represent data more concisely the best way to do it is using mathematics, no?
It seems the error has gone away after I updated aptos versions roughly one week ago
@tnowacki just to confirm as of now there is no way to verify the contract function bytecode without already having a local copy of the .move source?
Second on this, hashmaps seem to be quite useful
I will take this initiative
@julien51 , yes, will begin breaking ground in the next week or so
@brianmcmichael 1. "we sidestep terminological debates" by making the terminology dogs and cats 2. "we invent our own language because financial language isn't good enough and our readers can't understand...
I don't think this is necessary as mentioned `forge script` already is a superset of the proposed `forge deploy`. it is just the name that is different this would introduce...
This isn't just an issue in `cast`, but also with `alloy-rs` @mattsse especially for newer or exotic EVMs, has been extremely frustrating to deal with. If there's no way to...