-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 246
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
Priority fees EIP-1559 #3882
Comments
Just to clarify:
a user could set a really high maxFeePerGas, to ensure that no matter how congested the network their transaction can still be considered. They could also set a maxPriorityFeePerGas of 10 as an example. So if the block baseFee is 50gwei, the user sets their maxFeePerGas to 100 and maxPriorityFeePerGas at 10 the user will pay 60 gwei per gas (50 for the baseFee and 10 for the tip) If the network gets suddenly jammed up with txs, the baseFee might rise to 94gwei lets say, in this case the user will pay 100gwei per gas (94 base fee, and then 6 tip to the miner). --- coincidently after the hard fork gasPrice is inferred as maxFeePerGas for backwards compatibility, as maxPriorityFeePerGas is ♾️ so in the first scenario above where the gasPrice is set as 100 then the user will pay 100 per gas, with 50 being burned and 50 going to the miner as a tip. |
So I am just a costumer / user, but what I get from the open requests regarding EIP-1559 is, that Trezor does NOT support the optimal fee usage, but still relies on the backward compatibility right? I mean EIP-1559 was known for some time. Any ETA on this? |
Hello! What is still required for EIP-1559 integration into Trezor wallets? Is development help needed since trezor/trezor-firmware#1604 is merged. If there is a detailed plan on what needs to be done, I am willing to spend couple of sprints to develop it |
Seems like new firmware has arrived today: https://github.com/trezor/trezor-firmware/blob/master/core/CHANGELOG.md#242-16th-september-2021 |
@mysliwiec-tech Also available for Trezor One? Doesn't seem so :/ |
Seems like unfortunately not. Here's why: https://twitter.com/FrederikBolding/status/1438580809582194689?s=19 |
So when can we expect support for Trezor one gusys |
Hello! This is affecting all of Trezor One+Metamask users, which I think we are quite a lot of people. |
A workaround can be found here: https://twitter.com/benlakoff/status/1441174886114680833 |
@matejcik I think this issue should have a high priority tag given that Trezor One basically stopped being compatible with the most used wallet (Metamask). |
This issue breaks metamask support for trezor one. Seriously need a fix for this soon. |
Hi Trezor team, seems like alot of comments were deleted yesterday - curious, what was the reason? I imagine there's a large number of Trezor one users, and metamask/ eth is probably the #1 use case outside of cold storage. I'm curious if this is seen as important for Trezor, if not, why? This way users can prepare for the future by looking at alternatives ... thanks ya'll - still think ya'll the best hw co out there. |
It will be good to have clarity here! |
@jrm2194 @sm3434 @facundomedica @neokry @gliinbox @monomesa |
depends on trezor/trezor-firmware#1604, PR trezor/trezor-firmware#1653
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The upcoming Ethereum London hardfork changes fee calculations in a way that is (supposedly) both significantly more favorable to users, and makes it easier to reliably calculate fees for wallets.
Each block has a base fee per gas that a transaction must pay. The fee rate is adjusted per block based on network congestion, similar to Bitcoin difficulty.
The user sets two limits: maximum total fee rate and maximum priority fee rate. From the user's POV this breaks down as follows:
It's unclear to me if it makes sense to set the priority rate different from the total fee rate.
See https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1559 for details
Describe the solution you'd like
Suite should fetch the base rate and set the total fee rate and priority fee rate accordingly. Firmware will accept new fields to provide the new values.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: