https://twitter.com/LiveOverflow/status/1714342123724574979
This seems like the same issue to me, I don’t see any solution now that would not render sending a transaction impossible for the regular user in case of spam without optional fees.
In case of spam wouldn’t the fee be astronomically high? We saw that on both BTC and ETH with hundreds of $$$ required to send a tx in case of high congestion. How is this a solution?
When a node performs PoW, does that contribute to faster or bigger momentums? If PoW adds value, I don’t understand why it should ever cause a problem.
The base fee is relatively small, 1/200 ZNN, which could be modified in the future by governance maybe in case znn goes to 200$ for example.
I still believe that giving the user a choice is the best option, it’s much better rather than them not being able to even send a tx. We need both a dynamic plasma / pow mechanism and optional fees in order to have a complete solution.
PoW does not add value, it’s just an anti spam mechanism right now
Pow adds weight.
And weight adds value because there is cost to fabricating chain data.
I agree a holistic approach is the best one in the long run.
.
1 Like
Not in the current implementation
Dynamic Plasma Proposal
Current implementation:
- Every address has a corresponding account-chain where every account-block represents a transaction.
- Transactions are confirmed by the consensus in a separate structure which forms the dual-ledger
- Currently, a basic anti-spam mechanism exists:
3.1 Plasma obtained by generating Proof-of-Work: every user can generate a SHA-3 based PoW to send or receive transactions.
3.2 Plasma obtained by fusing QSR: every user can fuse a minimum of 10 QSR for any address for a minimum of 10 hours to send or receive transactions.
Problems with current implementation
- There is no positive feedback loop built into the system because transactions are feeless (Ethereum for example burns fees => the more the system is used => the better for every stakeholder in the system)
- ZNN needs to achieve equilibrium like QSR (burned or used as fee)
- Thresholds are hardcoded
Solution
Implement a hybrid Plasma system with 2 lanes:
- A feeless lane where users can still use PoW and QSR to generate Plasma.
- A fee-based lane where users burn* an amount of ZNN to generate Plasma.
(*) Burning ZNN makes sense long term, as validators already produce ZNN inflation indefinitely.
-
We need an algorithm to balance those lanes as the network gets congested.
-
We need to remove the hardcoded values from the feeless mechanism and implement dynamic thresholds.
-
We need to replace SHA-3 with an ASIC-resistant PoW.
-
Also we need a method to measure transaction “quality” that will determine the minimum Plasma thresholds:
- transaction amount in ZNN/QSR
- current balance of the account-chain in ZNN/QSR
- last transaction time of the account-chain
- number of account-blocks in the account-chain
Future work: PoW links
The whitepaper mentions PoW links where Sentinels take the role of crafting them by attaching a PoW and signing them (MrK already specified that this PoW can be outsourced to other clients). Currently, validators have the role of adding transactions to blocks and processing them. However, this can introduce new problems such as:
- Censoring transactions
- MEV
- Improper ordering of transactions
By adding a separate layer of nodes to “prepare” transactions, many of those problems can be avoided.
@georgezgeorgez @MoonBaze @sumamu @0x3639 @sol @CryptoFish @Chadass
7 Likes
I will dig into this asap but so far it sounds like a god compromise given the discussion we had. Thanks for this.
By adding a fee-based lane, we will also streamline integrations with the wider crypto ecosystem:
- integrations with popular wallets such as TrustWallet
- integrations with CEX
- other integrations that require a different model from the standard one based on fees
2 Likes
If fees are introduced (apparently as a hitherto unknown necessity due to most peoples’ beliefs that merge mining would be sufficient), what will be the share of feeless txs vs paid ones at high network usage and doesnt this ultimately undermine one of the key value props of zenon (assuming it will actually become an L1 eventually)?
If merge mining is implemented, won’t there be fees to pay to miners too though?
1 Like
How about using btc as gas?
Why? To be able to say we’re feeless because it’s another coin? What would be the benefit?
What are the stated purposes of introducing a fee mechanism?
Do those purposes imply any reason to use ZNN or QSR?
What is the hardest and most valuable cryptocurrency?
Would having a reserve of BTC locked in NoM serve some utility purpose in terms of interop or defi?
How do Bitcoin devs perceive projects that feature tokens?
Why do most projects use one token for governance, staking, yield, and gas?
What problems result from using one (or two) currencies for everything?
What other projects use BTC as the principle protocol level gas currency?
Would btc gas provide some minimum viable reasoning for the new logos and stickers?
Does it feel intriguing?
I think I might rather see NoM remain feeless, and then see an extension chain that might use BTC as gas. However, if this fee thing turns out to be widely supported and inevitable, then I feel BTC gas would be a much higher vibe than ZNN/QSR. Could the BTC lane be dynamic?
Maybe NoM is fundamentally feeless, but BTC gas transactions have priority up to 100% if the demand arises.
I have more questions, than answers, but I hope some others will be willing discuss the questions I posed above.
Maybe it would help the discussion in this thread (it’s a dev chat after all) if the questions asked were more narrowed down and to the point @Stark - or use the other forum for less technical brainstorming? Just a suggestion since we have few dev resources
Btw, I am 100 percent ok with being banned if my participation in this forum is outside the scope. I only know how to be myself and if the way I interpret these discussions and this forum is incorrect, just kick me out. No hard feelings.
Creating a feedback positive loop inside the ecosystem. Burning ZNN benefits every stakeholder from the ecosystem.
QSR is already used as proxy for generating Plasma. Burning ZNN makes sense in the long term, as QSR is already burned for creating Pillar slots.
Bitcoin.
This is beyond the scope of this discussion. We can use the TSS that secures the bridge to create a BTC vault.
Scams.
Simplicity.
This is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Liquid network I guess. To incorporate BTC as gas into the network we need access to the state of the Bitcoin blockchain. It’s feasible, but I don’t see an implementation at this stage.
Burning ZNN is the most logical thing to implement right now, because at the moment ZNN is only produced as inflation. We need a counter-balancing force.
2 Likes
A minimum threshold for feeless transactions can be implemented (reserving min 10% of a momentum’s capacity).
I guess Pillars setting up PoW pools will distribute a fraction of their rewards accordingly (similarly to paying delegators right now). IMO merge mining is another topic that should be discussed separately from dynamic plasma.
I just add to my first answe here and to precise things for @aliencoder and others: fee by themlselves WILL NOT benefit anykind of holders. I assume the idea here is that having fee means ZNN are burned which would translate in a somewhat better price action.
I never saw it, ever. It simply doesn’t work that way. The fee rarely balance the inflation. It’s never more than a minuscule % VS the tokens emission.
What you need is demand (hype, usecase, whatever). Your price action is the result of a lot of factors and a ton of highly inflationary systems (fee or not) see themselves going up - price wise - with the force of a thousand virgins and for a very long time - even with tokens unlocks hammering the supply on a montly basis. Talking about (not nash) equilibrium between burning mechanisms and inflationary policies is dangerously naive.
If this is one of the main reason for people to throw away the feeless paradigm we thought was the core of ZNN I suggest to reconsider.
4 Likes