Loaf

Here is a rough implementation. Thanks Lancelot... ``` %lang starknet from starkware.starknet.common.syscalls import get_caller_address from starkware.cairo.common.cairo_builtins import HashBuiltin from starkware.cairo.common.math import assert_not_zero, assert_not_equal, assert_lt_felt from starkware.cairo.common.alloc import alloc from starkware.cairo.common.uint256...

good point - it would be better to use that check. I think this pattern could be extended out to 721 and 20 if people request it. The 721 could...

well, it is two memory stores instead of 1. So for example in Realms we have 22 resources and an AMM. So in the current implementation, this is 44 memory...

yes, very valid point. I think you might be correct, the only question is if storage structs costs more to update, or if they count towards two storage updates on...

The question is now - if the 0 element within the uint256 never actually gets updated from 0, then it shouldn't actually cost anything extra than this implementation as the...

Yes, correct. So then this whole optimization becomes moot if the use case never gets above 2^129. So it's not worth the low-level change at that point, because the use...

@broody is this still active?

after talking with @kariy we are going to now provide script to easily deploy the hashes if the developer decides

Lets bounty this @tarrencev

has anyone successfully declared a Starknet contract using this method? I'm hitting an issue when declaring the contract ``` Error: StarkException: (400, {'code': , 'message': "Compilation failed. Error: Compilation failed.\n\nCaused...