Free Transactions?

[GGuy]

@zooko

I still think it would be great for the Zcash community to consider switching to EIP-1559-style transaction fees, especially now that Ethereum has gone first and derisked it for us!

I wasn’t aware this was discussed in ZCash community already. But yes I think this is exactly the type of transaction fee I’m proposing. And as long as we don’t impose a minimum fee we could conceivably have free transactions for a period of time .

I think the most controversial thing for the community might be any changes or discussions required around needing to prevent a 0zec 0fee transaction if we conclude that is a problem that requires addressing. I’m leaning towards not a problem tbh. Does a minimum transaction/fee of 1zathoshi really solve the problem? Probably not. Let the fee algorithm solve it when it becomes a problem .

[GGuy]

@zooko

an upgrade to the Zcash fee mechanism

I think Daria @daira makes a good point.

We have no obligation to pay miners the maximum fee that the market will bear; that’s what they get block rewards for.

Infact I think we should take that a step further. Our obligation should be for users to pay the minimum fee that the miners will bear.

Maybe we just need a different fee function to address everyone’s concerns…

[Autotunafish]

I tried to resist!
Also, Professor, its spelled “Zcash”

[nuttycom]

@GGuy

If I were a ZCash user i would rather that transaction fee come directly to me. Which in practice is just a free transaction with a minimum transaction amount.

I’ve actually suggested this as a wallet feature: a user-defined threshold below which one doesn’t get notified of memos. Couple this with an IVK import feature, and you have an ad-driven patronage model: the patronee shares their IVK; you import it to your wallet and set a threshold. Now, advertisers can send payments to that patronee, and you see the messages if the payment exceeds your threshold. The patronee can suggest a threshold (though the “patron” can choose a different one) and as a bonus, the patronee now has a communication channel to all of their patrons: they simply send a memo with the necessary amount to themself.

[GGuy]

@nuttycom

I’ve actually suggested this as a wallet feature: a user-defined threshold below which one doesn’t get notified of memos.

Good point and I think that’s an important discussion to have. Where do we draw the line when it’s the chain’s responsibility to reduce “spam” or when it’s the responsibility of the application/interface (e.g. wallet)?

@nuttycom

The patronee can suggest a threshold (though the “patron” can choose a different one) and as a bonus, the patronee now has a communication channel to all of their patrons: they simply send a memo with the necessary amount to themself.

A similar model seem to work for twitch. I wonder if a wallet provider could secure ZOMG funding proving this application in their wallet… .

[GGuy]

Anyone thought about a miner decided fixed fee per block with an algorithmic “difficulty tax” based on the fee amount? The difficulty tax function could make fees only statistically profitable in the long run when number of transactions is high enough to offset the difficulty change. At current block rewards the tax would be incredibly low (<1%).

It incentivises miners to set a low fixed fee when number of transactions is low since the fees gained won’t offset the difficulty increase.

A difficulty tax has the benefit of removing any incentives/concerns that miners could add extra transactions to gain an algorithmic transaction fee. An algorithmic difficulty tax also seems easier to reason with then a algorithmic fee.