anyone in here have any luck using ChainLink? I get an error with this import line and it is based on ChainLink's example: import "@chainlink/contracts/src/v0.6/VRFConsumerBase.sol";

but I get an error of: Import callback not supported

using pragma 0.5.0

bro

lol

use 0.8

yea it is pretty old pragma.

https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/tree/develop/contracts/src/v0.8

and use these

makes code look like 10000x better

and saves gas

https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/blob/develop/contracts/src/v0.8/VRFConsumerBase.sol

@jaypersanchez

Sup guys! Does safemath really save gas? I thought since the introduction of checked math it is not necessary anymore

thanks that's the link I'm already using. The example is using pragma 6

not safemath

safemath uses more gas

no safemath saves gas

(solidity 0.8)

:S

0.4 is a nightmare

Btw, does anyone know where I can find how to implement burning and sending a percent of every transaction to a certain address?
Just a code that implements it would be good for analyzing, but if you have videos or articles would be even better!

before transfer, substract from amount

and do another transfer

to burn

and then install 0.8 solc. If you are using Truffle, then change the compiler version in your truffle config

forgetting safemath is soo easy

all you have to do

is use + instead of .add

and * instead of .mul

and your code becomes 10x more clean

:P

:P

I came to solidity after checked math was introduced and I like to rewrite code to get rid of safemath when i copy anything)

:>

on contract

// is a buy
if (to == address(unirouter)) {

}

// is a sell
if (from == address(unipair)){

}

@SimonTianPhD

openzeppelin does not have those

these?

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/tree/master/contracts/token/ERC721

use these

those are old

and its bad practice to use them

those are 10x better though

better to switch to 0.8

0.4 is so bad lol

just different name

is interface

:P

and why is the contract your forking 0.4?

What accounts should be excluded from fees in reflect contracts?

I got this here.

for a buy, is to == address(router) or to == pair

lol

Neither. To will be the msg.sender. If I am buying something, I need that on my address right🙂

Cool. No consensus has been acheived. A bad block.

wtf?

why your phrases sounds so strange?

I guess we got a chain split here🙃

You got it.

This is wrong. For a sell, to will be the pair and for buy, to will be msg.sender

No need to involve router

Talking about token here, not eth

@mrrobot3_3 Will think about it. spaceowl.eth is not in the group anymore.

So?