4/ Second, it doesn't guarantee that tx cost will be lower in all cases. When demand rises suddenly, two-times-bigger block can make tx cost lower than in current mechanism. But when demand drops, users need to cost more than in current mechanism. It is a double-edged sword.
2
0
9
Replies
1/ Once again, I strongly against EIP-1559, as it can nether fulfil its promises nor provide 'improvement' for ethererum. Complete reasoning see the last part of . Here is the summary:
1
21
53
2/ First, it cannot make users' transaction cost more predictable, as it doesn't change what make gas price unpredictable, which is users' competition to use gas. Base fee is deterministic, but tip, the only one relevant in incentive to provide gas, **is still unpredictable**
2
0
13
3/ If users just need to set one price when sending transactions, it is the same experience as in current mechanism; if users need to set two prices, it is a worse experience.
2
0
11
5/ And DeFi boys and girls, here is a easy thought experiment. Given that miners get less in EIP-1559, how is possible that they will provide more gas? (Providing gas applies a cost in mining). Ane how is possibele that less available gas can make tx cost lower?
2
0
11
6/ Third, contrary to what someone says, EIP-1559 can not make ethereum more secure. Even we assume that all of burning value will translate into higher-valued block rewards, there are some cases it will remain the same security with current mechanis.
1
0
9
7 /And we should not forget that deflation can not just increase block rewards' value, rather, it will increase every unit's value (so decrease miners' income). There are some cases that we cannot deceide whether it will decrease security, but we have more confidence to say that.
1
0
7
8/ All of these conclusions is from basic economics theories. And I have not mentioned DOS vectors coming from bigger blocks (which implies that it is a bad idea technically).
2
0
8
9/ Don't say that EIP-1559-like policies do not break filecoins, etc. Filecoin is different from Ethereum where transactions need to comepete block space. The same policy in different context can have different effect. (I don't have ideas about filecoin.)
1
0
8
10/ Actually, EIP-1559 is a wealth redistribute mechanism in which it is extract value from users (in its literal meaning, who uses etherum block) and miners to subsidize coin holders (yes, it is literally a tax from economic view). It is unjust!
2
1
15
11/ Please, everyone concerning ethereum's vision and its sustainabilty, stop supporting EIP-1559. Don't drive away users. Don't expel miners, who took ethereum here and will take us go further. Our ecosystem and diversity is what make etherum strong and unstoppable. Please!
1
0
14
@AurtrianAjian
No one who understands 1559 is claiming that it will make fees cheaper. My own expectation is that the significant improvement to UX may well result in increased demand and *higher* fees. But that’s not a good reason not to do it.
1
0
0
@pintail_xyz
How to induce a higher demand given that users know that they will be charged a tax? IMO they will go to later-2 or CEX.
0
0
0