Create wallet-fee-change #6
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| eip: <to be assigned> | ||
| title: <Reduce Mina Wallet Creation Fee> | ||
| description: <The Proposal is to reduce the wallet creation for from 1Mina to .25Mina at the next hard fork on condition that a permanent solution is worked on.> | ||
| author: <Peter Greystoke with help from Trivo <[email protected]>> | ||
| discussions-to: <https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/do-you-think-there-should-be-a-fixed-price-to-set-up-a-mina-wallet/4507/32> | ||
| status: Draft | ||
| type: <Standards Track> | ||
| category (*only required for Standards Track): <Core> | ||
| created: <2021-12-20> | ||
| requires (*optional): <EIP number(s)> | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| MIP Template | ||
| This is the suggested template for new MIPs. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that an EIP number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull request to submit your EIP, please use an abbreviated title in the filename, `wallet-fee-change.md`. | ||
|
|
||
| The title should be 44 characters or less. It should not repeat the MIP number in title, irrespective of the category. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Abstract | ||
|
|
||
| Reduce new wallet creation fee from 1mina to .25mina with a caveat to investigating a permenant solution through MinaResearch. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This seems like a reasonable idea and a great opportunity to enact a community-driven protocol change. |
||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| The current 1 mina creaiton fee while still relatively small is a barrier for smaller investors. Should the price of Mina rise this will only become more so. With the prevalance of so many other coins, especially in the ZK space that don't have this fee, it may be that Mina Protocol loses out on early investors loyalty. This has additional consequences for community traction and wider interest and developer engagement. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Can you provide more detail in the motivation section on how we should frame our discussion around what an acceptable fee would be? There was a problem hiding this comment. The 0.25 fee was one suggested by Evan Shapiro here https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/do-you-think-there-should-be-a-fixed-price-to-set-up-a-mina-wallet/4507 and there are interesting discussions around a long term solution in the thread that warrant further discussion. The reality is any changes that require more complex modifications will take time to agree upon and at this time a relatively straightforward change to the fee was thought be a decisive and positive signal of intention. With investors all over the world with different budgets I think it is easy to forget that a small investor is less likely to choose to invest in Mina if a larger part of their capital is 'burned' when they create a wallet. The 0.25 fee is seen as a more affordable option even if Mina's price was to rise considerably in the next 6 months or so, by which time it is hoped a permanent solution would be agreed upon. |
||
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
|
|
||
| ***** HELP NEEDED TO COMPLETE THIS PART ****** | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Once you have sought out the help you need, please remove this line so that it is clear that the MIP is ready to go. |
||
|
|
||
| The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. | ||
|
|
||
| ********************* | ||
|
|
||
| ## Rationale | ||
|
|
||
| As a member with access to large numbers of the Mina Community I am aware that the high wallet creation fee is the biggest cause for negative discussion. By reducing the fee we are also signalling we can adapt and change to community concerns in a way that will benefit the project too. From discussion on MinaResearch and various polls see https://twitter.com/minacryptocom/status/1469249478897156109 83.6% for 16.4 % against 183 votes and https://twitter.com/minacryptocom/status/1477933982708867075?t=ahW9qaF1gAd3mMP3PKXpfA&s=19 79.5% yes 18.9% against 302 votes and https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/do-you-think-there-should-be-a-fixed-price-to-set-up-a-mina-wallet/4507/30?u=pete 80% for / 20% against 20 votes it is felt the proposal is strongly supported in the Community. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Backwards Compatibility | ||
|
|
||
| There should be no issues with Backwards Compatibility since the change is only a configuration update. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Test Cases | ||
|
|
||
| Not applicable - Account creation should already be covered by internal tests | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Reference Implementation | ||
|
|
||
| Not applicable - Reference Implementation is a configuration update. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Security Considerations | ||
|
|
||
| Lowering the fee down to 0.25 MINA allows not only for users to create addresses easier, but also for malicious actors. A malicious actor could, if the wallet creation fee was low enough, theoretically pollute the ledger with accounts. However, considering the current Dollar-value of Mina at the time of this post, a malicious actor would still need to raise ~$0.9 in order to create an address - therefore a lot of resources would still be needed in order to execute such an attack. Additionally, the ledger is currently of size 2^20, roughly 1,050,000, so with 0.25 MINA wallet creation fee, polluting the ledger would still be a massive hurdle for potential malicious actors. Therefore, we dont forsee any security concerns with lowering the wallet creation fee. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I would like to see a more robust economic argument here for the security implications of this. I think this argument could also be used to drive what fee we end up picking. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be much specific rational behind picking 0.25 besides the fact that it is 1/4 of the current cost. Even if an attacker does not fill up the ledger, every account an attacker puts into the ledger further increases the load on the networking layer. There are engineering tasks that we can take on that will mitigate this load increase, but at the time being, ledger size increases can increase the amount of time it takes for nodes to bootstrap to the network. This in turn damages our security if the bootstrap time gets too large. One way you could frame the security implications is to do the math on how long bootstrapping takes at various ledger sizes, and from that compute a formula that tells use how much an adversary can effect bootstrap time per MINA burned to create accounts. This will give us a clearer model to determine a reasonable new account creation fee, and whether or not we would need to take other networking improvements before changing the fee in order to ensure the network is impervious to ledger filling attacks. There was a problem hiding this comment. Will come back to you about this. Evan seemed unconcerned it woud be an issue https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/do-you-think-there-should-be-a-fixed-price-to-set-up-a-mina-wallet/4507/16?u=pete but I will try and obtain some more data. There was a problem hiding this comment. Have to agree with @nholland94 - this seems like the right way to approach it. There was a problem hiding this comment. @nholland94 - can you provide any tips for @minacryptocom to get started on the math? Will any tests have to be run? |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Copyright | ||
|
|
||
| Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can remove this portion of the template.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the comments, you are right there is no mention of the long term solution. This is a short term, but positive solution to a big issue. I have added a few sentences in the MIP about the method to find the long term solution.