A smart contract should have an implicit crypto account.

[wensheng]

Abstract

This hip suggests that a smart contract should have an implicit crypto account. The contract ID and account ID should be the same.

Motivation

Just like a crypto account, a contract can hold cryptos (Hbar), and tokens. It should be able to to send, receive cryptos and tokens just like a crypto account. However this is not possible because a contract is not a crypto account.

Currently a ContractInfo has contractId, accountId, and contractAccountId. The first two are the same '0.0.xxxx' number, the contractAccountId is int256 equivalent of xxxx contract number. But the crypto account does not exist. If you use a contractId as an accountId, you will get an error, such as 'invalid account'.

Rationale

A user should be able to send Hbars or tokens to a contract from his/her wallet/account, without calling any contract functions.

A contract with receive() or fallback() functions should invoke these functions when it received crypto from another account, or another contract.

Currently to invoke these functions, one uses setPayableAmount with ContractExecuteTransaction. This is not acceptable approach in various application.