Hi,
Burning fees is in interesting idea. It's important to consider that fees help
with miners sorting txs only if fees go (at least in part) to miners. A
progressive burn rate, where the more transactions the higher the burned fees
would make for an interesting fee market, somewhat like Monero's block reward
penalty if you squint just right. That could allow sorting while preventing
Garrick's concern about miners flooding blocks with their own superfluous
transactions. I like the point that burning fees is an indirect way to reward
holders, but I saw mention somewhere that it rewards full nodes, which I would
argue is not true. There is no need to run a node to benefit from holding.
In any event, I thought one of the great breakthroughs of Mimblewimble was that
there could in fact be transactions that effectively **reduce** the size of the
blockchain by consuming more utxos than they create. I don't see any mention of
this in this fee proposal, but it seems highly relevant. When fees are
determined, are they based off their burden on an archival node or their burden
on a fully validating node using MW's pruning? The second would seem more
prudent, as archival nodes will archive for their own personal reasons, and
that doesn't really have anything to do with the transaction's burden on the
system. Perhaps it effects bandwidth as transactions are relayed, but that's
not as big of a deal with Mimblewimble either given that transactions can be
effectively folded into one another by any relay node in the network, meaning
bandwidth is much less stressed (and truly complete archival nodes are much
more difficult, if not impossible).
Mischief Managed,
Seamus Finnigan
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
