- Understandable, but wouldnt companies rather have a more secure chain with less trust assumptions and collusion opportunies between a low amount of N finalization commitee? I doubt companies that will use blockchains have a dependancy on a tx-fee that is maybe 1$ or 0.01$ (we will go towards these fees probably within a couple years on main L1s) as they will get more value out of using it for a use-case (is an assumption however, but in my opionion a logical one).
1a. In addition, with what price feeds is the conversion of EUR/NRG/CCD monitored to be paid for the fee? Is it a private oracle or is a decentralized oracle used. + How secure is then the input? (if decentralized which aggregations are used and what are the future plans for this) if centralized, will this always be centralized and isnt the goal of a permisionless system to also have decentralized inputs?
- They made them dynamic to have a free fee market. which is efficient (have to admit not always, but often) for users that WANT to pay more (creating tons of demand for block-space).
2a. I have talked with Polynya about this, and FIFO (fixed fee) only makes sense if you are a Layer 3 where users can opt out to a base L2 or L1 with less centralized trust assumptions. Would love your thoughts on the matter regarding FIFO and having a bigger trust assumption with no way to opt out in the system as it is a base Layer 1.
2b. The reason for this thinking, is that for a FIFO system you need to have low censorship in the system, and this inherently means that more trust assumptions are present in the system, no?
- Please, Never use the words ‘’the goal is that this should not happen under normal circumstances’’. Almost nowhere in Crypto are normal circumstances. Systems will get pushed to their edges (if succesful) or die off due to no adoption. There (in a long enough timeline) is no middle-ground here. The system SHOULD be able to be resistant to huge loads or attacks. assuming stuff when building is a dangerous minefield.
- I have quickly read up on GRANDPA finalization scheme of DOT. It looks almost the same, only difference on the surface is that all nodes participate in GRANDPA for finalization and Concordium has this capped at 1000 (to increase finalization time and thus make a higher throughput which is needed since its fixed fee and FIFO i assume?). Is this assumption of mine correct? If not, what are the exact differences between finalization schemes of the two?
- Again, please refrain from using the word should
New question 10: Are there any concrete plans as to what Concordium will do if adoption rises heavily and there starts to built up a backlog in the system? What resources do you guys have to fix that? Can finalization time be increased by reducing number of finalization comitee, but thus increasing your trust assumption of not colluding finalization members, or do you need to use other tech such as Danksharding/Rollups. If so, What plans are in the pipeline currently for that? Increase block-size maybe?
I understand that the project is in its infancy and I do not know everything either. So would love to see where my thoughts are wrong, but it is up to you guys to come with counter-arguments. In addition, if you guys do not have the answer yet thats totally fine too, rather have an answer as: ‘’we do not know yet’’, then making a less solid argument that falls off later!
Again, I really appreciate the time and energy you guys put into in answering all my questions!
Enjoy the weekend in advance!