Couple of fixes to state migration

[palango]

Fixes the following issues:

• 135

• 160

• 157

[piersy]

Hey @palango why are we doing this?

• https://github.com/celo-org/optimism/issues/158

[palango]

Hey @palango why are we doing this?

• During migration, add existing balance when overwriting account #158

Because otherwise we'd loose existing balance. We found out yesterday that some of the accounts from the OP namespace received payments in the past, so we need to handle this edge case.

[piersy]

@palango

Regarding this I'm still a bit confused

Because otherwise we'd loose existing balance. We found out yesterday that some of the accounts from the OP namespace received payments in the past, so we need to handle this edge case.

So just to clarify, you are saying that some of the addresses of the contracts that we are inserting into our "L2 genesis" block have already received payments in the history of the celo L1?

If so I thought the previous approach was to fail?

[piersy]

Regarding this I'm still a bit confused

Because otherwise we'd loose existing balance. We found out yesterday that some of the accounts from the OP namespace received payments in the past, so we need to handle this edge case.

So just to clarify, you are saying that some of the addresses of the contracts that we are inserting into our "L2 genesis" block have already received payments in the history of the celo L1?

If so I thought the previous approach was to fail?

Ok I have understood the thinking here. We need to maintain the correct amount of celo tokens. I was worried about what could be achieved by someone who had the private key for these accounts but as you mentioned we haven't seen any transactions issued from those accounts, even though they received funds and as Marek pointed out if someone had the key they likely would have used it on op or base.