Wouldn’t it make more sense to use QSR for the base fee?
Given QSR fuses into plasma which equates to feeless transactions, and there are other examples of networks with a dual coin structure where they have a dedicated token for gas payments, I believe it will be less confusing.
I find it ridiculous even from you to write that someone disagreeing with your lazy takes is “just trolling”
Maybe it you were here in the Twitter Space we could have had a discussion.
It would be an ideea for sure. I just think it would benefit the network more to burn ZNN
Was thinking the same.
Hard to argue with this.
To george’s point, when the network is fully utilized (lane 1 and 2 are full) won’t everyone just pay fees to process TXs?
I wonder if the fact a fee lane exists will help prevent attacks. @MoonBaze do you envision the widths of the lanes be adjustable?
Maybe @MoonBaze’s proposal is an interim step. And we can reconsider the algo in the future when utilization is higher and we have more market cap to throw at solving the problem.
I still fail to see how a fee introduction mitigate a spam attack VS the plasma / pow multi lanes solution.
I think he is saying it solves the problem by allowing TXs to get processed under heavy spam by simply paying a fee. So it will not prevent spam, but it will allow valid TXs to get processed by paying the fee.
Yes but this is litteraly allowing txs being processed for people generating more pow. The difference is that we would lose an interesting difference VS other L1.
In the context of a multi lanes solution, what about a lane only dedicated to fusing plasma? In case of network congestion users would still be able to fuse and get their txs processed. An attacker would then have to both spam and acquire a lot of QSR beforehand. This under attack situation could then be addressed through governance with lanes balancing parameters changes.
In case the attacker spams the network using fees, he won’t be able to do it for long as it would cost him a lot of ZNN, which is why I would choose it instead of QSR. He would have to buy which would help every holder and it will be burned which in my opinion is good mechanism to further help increasing scarcity and the price.
In case the attacker spams with pow / fuse, every regular use can still use the network as normal
If the PoW lane is a fixed width, won’t that help against a PoW attack? The attacker consumes the entire PoW lane and honest users just use the QSR fused lane.
What do you mean by a fix laned width?
For example, if we can process 100 tps, we restrict the number of tps based on plasma type.
So the PoW “lane” can process 25 tps (for example) and the fused plasma lane can process 75 tps. We can set the width of the lane (how many tps) based on the imbedded governance module George is writing. that way if someone spams PoW they can only consume 25% of the available tps.
And we can manually change the lane width based on pillar vote.
I don’t think pillars would be online so often to vote. It is hard to access embedded storage from where the momentums are created. Ideas come but we should also think about implementation. Also, to acquire QSR is really cheap and will always be much cheaper. It seems like a trivial solution.
It’s the same for an attacker spamming with PoW. This has a cost. Beside it could be mitigated with what we mentioned before:
Thus without compromising the underlying design of the NoM with an easy intuitive decision that make little sense. Decision that would also come with a marketing cost.
It seems that everyone forgot how Ethereum behaves under high congestion. I used to pay $700 for a swap. It doesn’t seem like fee address anything when your network struggles anyway.
EDIT : the addition of a T (time) variable for each tx to weight more and more would help users to transact in case of high congestion, attack or not.
My guess is the lane widths will not be changed frequently. The idea is to limit the throughput of each lane, start with a number and change it infrequently if the initial number is not “good”.
If someone wanted to spam 1000 tps @ 100 qsr, they need 100,000 QSR. Then a QSR war would ensue. Users would need to increase fused QSR to overcome the spammer.
Maybe that means users need to fuse 1000 QSR for a period of time. The “fee” users pay would be in increased fused QSR. that market would then find a state of equilibrium over time. It will balance the desire to spam with process honest TXs.
(added T variable note as discussed in the Space)
I still consider that PoW would be easier to mass produce despite the market value of ZNN / QSR and QSR will always be cheaper to acquire than ZNN. QSR is already burned for a pillar, locked for sentinel and used to send a transaction in normal conditions which will be like 99% of the time. ZNN deflation is a mechanism we don’t have and is useful. Right now we need an anti spam solution. We won’t have 700$ for a tx unless we have EVM on L1 which will not happen in minimum 2 years at the rate things happen here.
I’m open to all solutions. I’m just trying to understand all issue and get as much community participation as possible.
I still consider your solution is an easy fix that doesn’t fix anything. I’m open to solutions.
Can you bring some arguments? I could also say that when qsr is 5$ people have to fuse 500$ to send a tx.
I did, and not only me. Please read above. In the case you’re mentioning PoW is still a valid option and the lanes can then be balanced algorithmically or / and through governance in order to address the congestion.
Is QSR is $5 then the network is also stronger VS a possible attack on the plasma lane.