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
Include the fee explicitly in V6 transactions #805
Comments
I thought there was an "absurdly high fee" safety check? In any case, I'm in favour of fixed fees for both privacy and simplicity. Now that we've reduced the free transaction threshold, there's no reason not to just use a fixed fee of 0.0001 ZEC (currently about 0.3 US cents) for all transactions. |
Related: zcash/zcash#2942 |
I don't want fixed fees..... I personally always double it on txns with a JoinSplit, for instance, and they get mined the next block.....leave it at the default, and not always Just as a for instance.....and I do make frequent use of the inherited "sendtoaddress" command a lot too, and that cli command does seem to have sane defaults... so I am not sure what this is contemplating changing? |
ah ok yeah now that I've read zcash/zcash#2942, THAT one makes sense |
In the case that we create a V6 transaction format, we should change the fee behavior to make a consensus rule that the explicitly included fee matches the one calculated according to the current rules. (with @daira) |
This would also be very helpful for Zebra's parallel transaction verification. We could check explicit fees in transactions and blocks in parallel, and then check each transaction's inputs provide the specified fee in series. |
Software should help users. When it comes to fee selection, it should be very hard to make mistakes. The current transparent fee computation (inherited from upstream) - input value less output value - is prone to user error. It is very easy to forget to add an output for a change address, make a calculation error, mix up units etc.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1818791.0 (Bitcoin network, March 8, 2017)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: