Replies: 9 comments 6 replies
-
no fees might potentially lead to automated tx spams, so definitely good idea. proposed amount 2aFET also sounds reasonable considering denom FET token has. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
it's better to prevent so I would recommend to increase the minimum fees on the mainnet chain! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2 aFET sounds like a good starting point. This has the support from STAKING.LAND. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
we support the proposal to avoid spamming the network, but having in mind aFET denom specs seems like 2 aFET is very small. With just 1$ you could send tons of transactions. 2 aFET is better than nothing but not very safe IMO. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The proposed gas price of 2afet is unlikely to deter spamming. A budget of, say, 10FET, would buy 5x1018 gas. At around 60,000 afet for a send tx, and 150,000 afet for a staking tx, an attacker could run 20 trillion of each and still have change from a dollar! As Atari-buzzk1LL says, we'll almost certainly need to increase gas prices in future. Not to anywhere near ETH / BTC levels, where network capacity is woefully lacking, but perhaps to a level where it's economically unattractive to flood the network beyond its available throughput. Assuming proposal 8 passes, our network capacity will be around 30M gas / minute, and the gas price will ultimately need to reflect that limit. From a technical viewpoint, however, there's a world of difference betweeen a zero and a non-zero gas price. Even with a trivial 2afet minimum gas price, many currently-used API calls, and fetchd commands, will flat-out fail unless additional parameters are supplied. Also, shortcomings in the current Cosmos SDK's gas estimation mean that developers will likely need to experiment with gas-adjustment values in order to get their code working reliably. That's one reason that the dorado testnet has imposed a minimum gas price (of 1000000000atestfet) for some time now. So, IMHO, the main benefit of this proposal is to ensure that developers support non-zero gas prices in their code. Once all applications running on the network expect to pay for gas, the actual gas price can safely fluctuate according to the demand / threat landscape at that point in time. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
agree, slowly increasing of gas fee is the normal way to improve network |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
At MOBIX.AI we think it makes a lot of sense to introduce FET transaction fees. However, It will take us some time to implement the support of fees in our system (which consists of several components that have to be aligned). Therefore, we ask to introduce the fees effectively at the end of September 2022. This would grant us sufficient time for integrating and fully testing the transaction fee support within our products. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I just wanted to let the community know that we will be leaving this purely as a discussion and not moving onto a Fetch Improvement Proposal (FIP) for 2-3 weeks maximum to allow the MOBIX team the time that has requested by @kiranezu for having an implementation ready for the proposal. I wanted to inform the community about this waiting period so there is no confusion on why the FIP is not being put out. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Update from the MOBIX team... https://mobix.ai/2022/09/13/mobix-app-update-september-2022/ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Many validators on the Fetch-ai Network do not have minimum gas fees set to their node for accepting transactions. This can easily lead to network congestion from spam attacks since you can spam transactions at no cost. To mitigate this problem, the Fetch-ai Network team believes it be necessary for as many validators as possible (hopefully all) to set their minimum-gas-prices value to at least 2 aFET on their validator node.
Other networks in the ecosystem such as Cosmos and Osmosis have already had their validators and community discuss this and came to the same conclusion that our team has, which is that this is the safest and easiest way to prevent these network attacks.
The Fetch-ai Network team have already done testing with having minimum fees on both the previous Capricorn testnet and even now with the Dorado testnet and we experienced no issues from this.
We'd like to gauge the community and validator's sentiment on this idea, so if you have any suggestions then feel free to post below.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions