The final result of this ZIP does not seem sustainable long term in regards to preventing fee based privacy leaks. As Zcash grows in popularity some developers are likely to ignore the fee recommendation.
Specifically I am building a service that will use the encrypted memo field. My plan is to honor the recommendation of this ZIP. However if my service becomes popular the number of transactions and transaction fees will be substantial. I am greatly concerned that another developer could try build a similar service to mine and undercut me by paying lower transaction fees.
Lets revisit this and create a new ZIP where creating privacy leaks cannot become a competitive advantage. We need a solution that includes protocol level enforcement in order to both product user privacy AND create a level playing field for developers that want to build useful things on Zcash
interesting idea, would it make sense to have a fixed fee for Zcash. No privacy leak. No undercutting. All z2z transactions are treated equally by miners.
Default fee for all ztoz and t to t
Incentivizing ztoz to have incentives in return to use z to z may be 2% so it could have an addon advantage to use z to z transactions
Fixed fees would be an improvement now so that different wallets lack the option to charge different fees, but two questions remain:
At what level do we fix those fees? To me it seems that the easiest way to reach consensus is to fix the fees at the recommended level in this ZIP
When and how do we make changes in preparation for the distant future where block become full? I donât have the answer to this, but experience tells me these things get far more difficult to change as the network grows. The smaller we are now, the more nimble we can be. Lets take advantage of that by making smart decisions now that will work in the long term
The merits of EIP-1559 while interesting do not require the same level of care to the privacy implications as a similar proposal would for Zcash. Without privacy, Zcash has no unique value proposition. Maximizing privacy needs to be the core focus of all major protocol decisions.
The best option âfor everyoneâ is just for the protocol designers to estimate what it really costs a miner to include a transaction in a block (as a function of size and verification cost), and implement that plus a reasonable transaction inclusion incentive as a fixed fee. In a private cryptocurrency, this is also the best option for privacy.
What the developer community needs is a clear vision where Zcash is going so that decisions about the sustainability of applications we want want to build on Zcash can be made. So far we donât have that for fees or privacy. We need consensus and stability enforced by the protocol if we want developer and application diversity to expand.
Are there any objections to setting a 1000 zats fee minimum now? Default fee recommendations wonât be sufficient as the number of developers building things increases.
I am not against the idea of considering a ZIP similar to EIP-1559 but expect that will be controversial and take a long time to build consensus around. Its not my goal to postpone the discussion but blocks are not in danger of filling in the immediate term and changing the current default fee to a protocol enforced minimum seems like an easy short term solution to a real risk.
Standard 1000 zat tx fee is now implemented across the top wallets. Correct, blocks are no where close to filling up and we have a 40 block mempool limit which can accommodate 3-4 million transactions which the Zcash big close will chomp through every 90 seconds or so. Can Zcash scale to a million users?
Thanks for implementing those fees, but this unfortunately this misses my point.
I am not competing with existing wallets. However my anticipated usage of the encrypted memo field exceeds the current transaction count from all Zcash wallets combined. Absent protocol level enforcement of fees at that level I am rightly concerned that another developer could attempt to replicate my service and undercut me with tx fees while simultaneously harming network privacy by making it easier to fingerprint usage types based on tx fees.
We need protocol enforcement, not merely agreement and implementation from the top wallets today.
Letâs think whatâs best for zcash instead of listening to random few people for its future
Letâs run a real-time poll for. Pos, funding, new implementations
Letâs make tool for a proper governance
Letâs do something better
Correct me if I am wrong but I think the top wallets have already agreed to and are supporting the recommended fees (option 2). This is the reason why I am only focusing on the first option now. If there was a popular wallet developer not using the recommended fees today I would be focused on the second option too.
In the light of recent network flood, what do you think about raising the fees? Currently the default fee is 0.00001 per transaction or 0.06 cents. I would support a ZIP that introduces an extra 0.00001 fee for outputs beyond the second (so nothing changes for regular n-in-2-out payments to a single address, i.e. 1 output for recipient + 1 change output) but creating 1100 junk outputs (as the flood is doing now) would cost 66.48 cents. However, one unintended side effect would be making miner payouts to z-addrs more expensive, as those are typically batched together.
too low fee is bad and can be misused in many ways.
iâd even pay 0.5$ for a private transaction - its nothing compared to industry average (btc eth) and can make business more attractive in masses.
something between my opinion and todays fee is the best
It can definitely improve social interaction on things like ZECPages. E.g. costs you coin to shitpost if you really want to.
I think the payphone transaction model makes sense (a quarter or two to process the transaction). Maybe some of that fee even goes into a âcommunity fundâ.
I think that this is the right direction; probably a fixed per-byte fee is the correct thing to help discourage the current flood. In the future, Iâd like to see this combined with an EIP-1559-style fee adjustment algorithm, so that fees are adjustable but non-discretionary so as not to leak any information.
The blocks are not full yet, still, the Zcash blockchain size has been increasing significantly. This calls for research on optimized lightweight blocks, transactions, and wallet syncing to improve end-user usability of the network.
Not speaking for ECC here, but I have a simple proposal: instead of per-byte fees (which could potentially cause people to prefer transparent transactions) we should set the fee to 250 zats per transaction input or output, which would leave the current fee for a âstandardâ 2-input, 2-output transaction unchanged. This does not discriminate between protocols, and is trivial to implement and get into minersâ hands quickly.
Later, we can discuss options such as:
A fee surcharge to discourage use of legacy pools (Sprout, Sapling, transparent)
An EIP-1559-style fee adjustment algorithm.
But for right now, letâs fix the fees to make attacking the chain more costly.
If the âattackersâ arenât executing free txs (Iâll have to dig more but all the ones I saw were default) then how is this any different the protocol-level representation of usage from mass-adoption?
