mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Seamus Finnigan <seamus.finnigan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Burning fees is in interesting idea. It's important to consider that fees help with miners sorting txs only if fees go (at least in part) to miners. A progressive burn rate, where the more transactions the higher the burned fees would make for an interesting fee market, somewhat like Monero's block reward penalty if you squint just right. That could allow sorting while preventing Garrick's concern about miners flooding blocks with their own superfluous transactions. I like the point that burning fees is an indirect way to reward holders, but I saw mention somewhere that it rewards full nodes, which I would argue is not true. There is no need to run a node to benefit from holding.

In any event, I thought one of the great breakthroughs of Mimblewimble was that there could in fact be transactions that effectively **reduce** the size of the blockchain by consuming more utxos than they create. I don't see any mention of this in this fee proposal, but it seems highly relevant. When fees are determined, are they based off their burden on an archival node or their burden on a fully validating node using MW's pruning? The second would seem more prudent, as archival nodes will archive for their own personal reasons, and that doesn't really have anything to do with the transaction's burden on the system. Perhaps it effects bandwidth as transactions are relayed, but that's not as big of a deal with Mimblewimble either given that transactions can be effectively folded into one another by any relay node in the network, meaning bandwidth is much less stressed (and truly complete archival nodes are much more difficult, if not impossible).

Mischief Managed,
Seamus Finnigan

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.