Replies: 1 comment
-
Hey @furkan-ux , you're right 0-gas transactions are supported by Ethereum, so I'd be in favor of making sure that they are supported in Subnet-EVM and deferring to the Subnet maintainer to ensure that sufficient DoS protection mechanisms are in place elsewhere. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hello everyone,
We're facing an issue on the Subnet-EVM where transactions with no gas aren't being added to the block. From my previous experience, I recall EIP-1559 being the culprit, and tweaking the genesis doesn't seem to alleviate the issue; these transactions just remain in the mempool.
Having the capability to process 0-gas transactions is crucial for various applications. This is especially true for enterprise and/or private networks, and chains that employ the EVM for its simplicity but introduce unique account structures. Some privacy-centric frameworks, for example, necessitate the use of throwaway accounts (generated through random private keys) to sign transactions. This strategy is implemented to counteract gas-linkability issue. Generally speaking, in these frameworks, account IDs are included in the transaction data instead of the conventional msg.sender.
While I acknowledge the potential security risks (like DoS attacks) associated with enabling 0-gas transactions, we (EtraPay) have other security measures in place to mitigate these risks.
Any guidance on how to seamlessly enable this feature would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions