New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement new fee handling that can be more dynamic #14

Closed
kaiyzen opened this Issue Jan 11, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@kaiyzen
Copy link
Collaborator

kaiyzen commented Jan 11, 2019

It is desired to improve on the nis1 fee handling, making things more dynamic and taking into account things such as size and complexity of the transaction.

@kaiyzen kaiyzen added this to the dragon milestone Jan 11, 2019

@kaiyzen kaiyzen added the enhancement label Jan 11, 2019

@gimer gimer modified the milestones: dragon, Cow Jan 31, 2019

@Jaguar0625

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Jaguar0625 commented Feb 5, 2019

  1. NEM Blocks will be extended to include a new uint32 “fee multiplier” field. All values are acceptable, including zero.
  2. Transaction fee field will be changed to represent the maximum fee paid for confirmation.
  3. Fees will be based entirely on transaction size. Within a block, a transaction’s effective fee will be transaction::size * block::fee_multiplier. For unconfirmed transactions, max_fee will be assumed.
  4. Harvesting nodes will be able to set the minimum fee multiplier they will put into blocks they harvest.
  5. Harvesting nodes will be able to pick their transaction inclusion strategy: prefer-oldest (preferred for high TPS), minimize-fees (for benevolent nodes), maximize-fees (for most nodes)
    Please advise if there are any concerns with this approach. Thanks!

note: fees are dynamic and determined by market, so we don’t envision any future changes to this model in foreseeable future

@Jaguar0625

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Jaguar0625 commented Feb 8, 2019

@Jaguar0625 Jaguar0625 closed this Feb 8, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment