> Transaction fees are mostly a mechanism to prevent transaction flooding.
The block size limit should be the primary mechanism for that. > Space and bandwidth in a blockchain network are scarce resources and free > transactions would lead to abuse. The abuse would be due to a lack of information on which transactions are more worthy of being included in the limited block space. > A secondary use of transaction fees is to provide an ordering mechanism for > transactions when capacity is limited. Users can express the urgency, or > lack thereof, of their transactions by including larger or smaller fees. This is to me the primary use of fees. In a market for block space supply and demand, one must be able to express demand. > However, if fees are burnt, this mechanism disappears as miners do not get > the fees and therefore only have a weak incentive to order. In the worst > case scenario, users could be tempted to pay miners directly to have their > transactions included, leading to a strong centralization pressure. > > The common assertion that fees are also a mechanism to incentivize miners to > include transactions in blocks is dubious at best. I beg to differ. > Miners have an economic > incentive to include transactions regardless. There is a lot of evidence > that they will do so, in some measure, even if it's non-economical (fees too > low to pay for elevated orphan rate). No; they will not include transactions that don't fit in the limited block space. > I've been thinking about this for some time and would like to propose the > following rules: > > There is a minimum relay fee per transaction and minimum relay fee per > output newly created (output_count - intput_count). We may want to refine > this a little bit to account for varying sizes of the range proof but let's > ignore that for now. > Fees get burnt up to $REWARD. > When the sum of all fees is above $REWARD, the overage gets added to the > coinbase output (so coinbase=max($REWARD, sum(fees)). > There is a limit on the number of new outputs a block can create. > > This stays very simple while seemingly retaining all the properties we need. > Any way you can think of this being broken? I can see the value in burning. I would like to instead propose that the fee is evenly split between burning and miner reward. This also prevents the miner from including transactions to herself for free. regards, -John -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
