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

EIP1559 fee market is broken #347

Closed
samsondav opened this issue Mar 10, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

EIP1559 fee market is broken #347

samsondav opened this issue Mar 10, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@samsondav
Copy link

samsondav commented Mar 10, 2022

We have found during the course of testing our EIP-1559 implementation on Polygon that Polygon's implementation of EIP-1559 appears to be broken (on both testnet and mainnet).

See my comments in the discord channel:
https://discord.com/channels/635865020172861441/638326018637168661/945745290131025961

We rolled out EIP-1559 support recently there for our Chainlink nodes but they are performing poorly, and the numbers make no sense. For example, how on earth is it possible that the base fee is 16 wei (0.000000016 Gwei) because all blocks are half empty, yet the mempool consists of 250k+ mineable transactions (of which many are ours) causing us to spend 625000000 times the base gas as a priority fee to mine our transactions?

We had to switch back to legacy transactions on Polygon because the EIP-1559 transactions are simply not being included, and not functioning as we would expect.

Here is an example of a very low base fee, but during that time there were hundreds of thousands of mineable transactions queued:

https://polygonscan.com/tx/0xf9e67b840df1f2d7f392a2cc26b29ccd1b892b34aba52681916ee2b687a27bd0

@QEDK
Copy link

QEDK commented Mar 15, 2022

We have found during the course of testing our EIP-1559 implementation on Polygon that Polygon's implementation of EIP-1559 appears to be broken (on both testnet and mainnet).

See my comments in the discord channel: https://discord.com/channels/635865020172861441/638326018637168661/945745290131025961

We rolled out EIP-1559 support recently there for our Chainlink nodes but they are performing poorly, and the numbers make no sense. For example, how on earth is it possible that the base fee is 16 wei (0.000000016 Gwei) because all blocks are half empty, yet the mempool consists of 250k+ mineable transactions (of which many are ours) causing us to spend 625000000 times the base gas as a priority fee to mine our transactions?

We had to switch back to legacy transactions on Polygon because the EIP-1559 transactions are simply not being included, and not functioning as we would expect.

Here is an example of a very low base fee, but during that time there were hundreds of thousands of mineable transactions queued:

https://polygonscan.com/tx/0xf9e67b840df1f2d7f392a2cc26b29ccd1b892b34aba52681916ee2b687a27bd0

You also need to provide 30+ gwei priority fees for validator nodes to mine them, I suspect the vast majority of pending txs do not meet that requirement, making them unmineable. Secondly, none of that has any bearing on the EIP-1559 fee market since that only involves network usage (or gas used/gas limit % per block) and base fee - essentially making a separate fee market for priority fee, currently users are competing with other txs by increasing the priority fee, which is normal, since base fee is a much bigger picture fee market and as utilization increases, it will automatically adjust to demand. Thirdly, the reason base fee is low is because enforcing miner tip is reducing spam txs significantly and reducing network utilization, so this is a normal consequence.

@QEDK QEDK closed this as completed Mar 15, 2022
@samsondav
Copy link
Author

samsondav commented Mar 28, 2022

You also need to provide 30+ gwei priority fees for validator nodes to mine them

This is surprising. Is it likely to change in future? We can't rely on setting this default if it's likely to change and prevent our transactions from being included.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants