Closed dvlkv closed 2 years ago
поддерживаю!
I agree! This is really a problem right now
Agreed
Agreed
Idea of notification is to allow contracts to receive tokens in standardized manner. If there is no contract what is notification for? If you need to pass TONs using indirect passing through jetton-wallets chain looks excessive? Anyway standard does not cover bounce flag of notification, so from first glance both options are ok. Anyway, we will think a few days about consequences of one or another option and came here with our opinion.
Idea of notification is to allow contracts to receive tokens in standardized manner. If there is no contract what is notification for? If you need to pass TONs using indirect passing through jetton-wallets chain looks excessive? Anyway standard does not cover bounce flag of notification, so from first glance both options are ok. Anyway, we will think a few days about consequences of one or another option and came here with our opinion.
Thank you for your response. By the way, if the functionality was implemented, expected that any forwarded TONs wouldn't be lost forever. For example, if you want to send jettons to somebody who has uninitialized wallet, and some TONs for gas with comment (like it implemented in TonHub), the comment won't be received. For contracts, if user want to send jettons to uninitialized contract, it should be user's fault, not the contract developers and not the jetton implementation.
After discussion, we decided that indeed, non-bouncable notifications provide a wider range of use cases without downsides.
If you will forward TONs to uninitialized account, they are lost now. So we don't need to bounce forwarded message.