Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FIP-0100: Removing Batch Balancer, Replacing It With a Per-sector Fee and Removing Gas-limited Constraints #1113

Merged
merged 27 commits into from
Feb 13, 2025

Conversation

irenegia
Copy link
Contributor

@irenegia irenegia commented Feb 4, 2025

This FIP aims to enhance the efficiency and economic sustainability of the Filecoin network by removing batch fees from precommit and provecommit methods, introducing a per-sector fee for a more stable cost structure, and eliminating outdated protocol constraints made redundant by improved gas accounting.

We are proposing a FIP for replacing the batch balance with a new per sector fee and be able to support more batching/aggregation.
@irenegia irenegia changed the title Create fip-removeBatchBalancer.md FIP-xxxx: Removing Batch Balancer, Replacing It With a Per-sector Fee and Removing Gas-limited Constraints Feb 4, 2025
@beck-8
Copy link

beck-8 commented Feb 7, 2025

Where is the discussion of this FIP?
Wouldn't daily_fee introduce more complicated logic? When SPs are earning income, some of their income is inexplicably reduced, and when they terminate, they have to destroy more. I don't think SPs will accept this.

@rvagg rvagg force-pushed the irenegia-removeBatchBalancer branch from 6e782db to 6800e5f Compare February 7, 2025 05:22
@rvagg rvagg force-pushed the irenegia-removeBatchBalancer branch from 6800e5f to ee4576d Compare February 7, 2025 05:39
@irenegia
Copy link
Contributor Author

irenegia commented Feb 7, 2025

Where is the discussion of this FIP? Wouldn't daily_fee introduce more complicated logic? When SPs are earning income, some of their income is inexplicably reduced, and when they terminate, they have to destroy more. I don't think SPs will accept this.

@beck-8 the fip discussion is here #1105 (also linked in the table at the beginning of the FIP text)

Having a per sector fee instead of the batch balancer fee actually simplify the system offering more predictable cost.
Indeed the new per sector fee is not related to base fee value, its is a constant fraction of CS, which is more predictable and less "spiky".

About termination, we are actually considering a discount on having to pay the remaining of the new fee given termination fee is already applied. Thanks for pointing this out!

@beck-8
Copy link

beck-8 commented Feb 10, 2025

@irenegia Thank you for your reply.
Can you express in numbers how much this fee is? How much is the daily fee? How much is the 540-day sector fee? Is the batch fee higher or lower than before?

@irenegia irenegia marked this pull request as ready for review February 10, 2025 10:58
Copy link
Contributor

@momack2 momack2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Proposed to give this FIP-0099 FIP-0100 - also a few open clarifications needed to confirm which implementation + design pathway is confirmed of the options proposed.

@momack2 momack2 changed the title FIP-xxxx: Removing Batch Balancer, Replacing It With a Per-sector Fee and Removing Gas-limited Constraints FIP-0099: Removing Batch Balancer, Replacing It With a Per-sector Fee and Removing Gas-limited Constraints Feb 10, 2025
@momack2
Copy link
Contributor

momack2 commented Feb 10, 2025

Please add questions & comments to the discussion issue at #1105

@herrehesse
Copy link

What are the cost and gas implications for an average miner sealing 100TiB daily under the proposed per-sector fee model compared to the current Batch Balancer?

@momack2 momack2 changed the title FIP-0099: Removing Batch Balancer, Replacing It With a Per-sector Fee and Removing Gas-limited Constraints FIP-0100: Removing Batch Balancer, Replacing It With a Per-sector Fee and Removing Gas-limited Constraints Feb 11, 2025
@momack2
Copy link
Contributor

momack2 commented Feb 13, 2025

All outstanding FIP editor questions / comments appear to have been addressed. ✅

Merging this PR to officially land this draft FIP - discussion may continue in #1105 and further details may be added to the specification via future PRs as implementation proceeds.

momack2 and others added 2 commits February 13, 2025 09:08
@momack2 momack2 merged commit ea103d8 into master Feb 13, 2025
1 check passed
@momack2 momack2 deleted the irenegia-removeBatchBalancer branch February 13, 2025 18:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants