In this thread, I want to introduce a LIP complementing the roadmap objective “Replace static fee system by dynamic fee system”.
I’m looking forward to your feedback.
Here is a complete LIP draft for the solution:
LIP: lip-ikeralustiza-introduce_minimum_balance_requirement_for_accounts Title: Introduce minimum balance requirement for accounts Author: Iker Alustiza <email@example.com> Type: Standards Track Created: <YYYY-MM-DD> Updated: <YYYY-MM-DD> Requires: 0013
This LIP introduces a new rule for the validity of transactions, which implies that the balances of sender and recipient cannot go below a certain constant value, minBalance, defined by the protocol.
This LIP is licensed under the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal.
Once LIP-0013 becomes active and assuming that blocks are not always full, the majority of transactions will pay a fee that is a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper than the current one. For example, the minimum fee for a balance transaction will be 0.00125 LSK in contrast to the current 0.1 LSK. This means that a malicious user with 1250 LSK could broadcast around 1M transactions to create 1M new accounts (currently the blockchain has around 240000 accounts in its database). Eventually this issue, usually called dust accounts, can become a burden for the database and hinder the scalability of the platform.
We believe that the minimum fee per Byte set in LIP-0013, 10-5 LSK/Byte, is a good trade-off given the different sized transactions and expected network usage, and increasing it may lead to other limitations. Therefore, the solution, as in other blockchain projects (see approaches for Bitcoin or for Ethereum), should come from other means. Also, the fact that every balance transaction to a new account implies a new row in the accounts table suggests that this specific action should have a cost to account for the extra account storage. Note that account data, in contrast to past blocks and transactions, cannot be pruned.
This LIP introduces a new rule for the validity of the transactions in order to solve, or at least to greatly mitigate, the issue introduced in the previous section. Basically, the rule is that for any transaction to be valid, the balance of the affected accounts (after the transaction has been applied) has to be equal or higher than a positive constant parameter, i.e. minBalance. This way, spamming the database by creating useless new accounts becomes expensive and the dust accounts issue is greatly mitigated. Note that, one can see that this rule exists in the current protocol, with the difference that this constant is equal to 0.
Conceptually, one could say that this proposal introduces a required amount, denoted by minBalance, to maintain a Lisk account. Specifically, this is realized in the following way:
- Outgoing transactions from accounts are only valid if the balance of the account after applying the transaction is equal to or greater than minBalance.
- Incoming transactions to accounts are only valid if the balance of the account after applying the transaction is equal to or greater than minBalance.
Bear in mind that this is not setting directly any rule for the validity of accounts. It may happen that the balance of an account is smaller than minBalance because this was its state before the implementation of this proposal.
Choosing the value of the constant parameter minBalance
The changes in the protocol introduced by this proposal are minimal. However, choosing the right value for the constant parameter introduced before has important implications for the network usability and performance:
- If the value of this constant is too low, the dust accounts issue will not be sufficiently mitigated.
- If this value is excessively high, basic actions of the Lisk blockchain, like funding an account for the first time, will be too expensive and deter new users from creating an account.
With that in mind, the proposed value for minBalance is 0.05 LSK which implies the following:
- Creating 1M dust accounts as explained above will require to use more than 50000 LSK, roughly 50 times more than the current situation.
- Users funding new accounts (zero balance accounts in general) will need to send a transaction with an amount larger than 0.05 LSK.
Minimum amount required for balance transactions
A minimum amount is defined in the protocol as a constant and a balance transaction sending an amount below that amount is invalid. This approach does not solve the issue since one can always send an arbitrary amount of tokens to n accounts in n hops, i. e., from A to B, from B to C, from C to D…
Initialize account fee: extra fee paid by the sender
Every time a balance transaction is sent to a new account, i.e. an account not existing in the database, the sender has to add an extra fee to the transaction. We believe that this approach is unfair in the way that the sender is the one required to pay to create the new account.
Initialize account fee: fixed amount deducted from the receiver
Every time a balance transaction is sent to a new account, i.e. an account not existing in the database, a certain quantity is deducted from the transaction amount. This approach solves the disadvantage of the previous one. However, it implies a complexity in the protocol that we believe is not acceptable: There is no direct accountability of the deduced amount in the blockchain which may complicate certain verification and synchronization processes in the node.
The protocol defines a new constant,
minBalance. This constant sets the required amount (in Beddows) used by the new validity rule for transactions:
minBalance = 5000000;
Transaction validation process
In general, the new rule specifies that, for a certain transaction to be valid, the balance of any account affected by said transaction cannot go below
minBalance after applying the transaction. This has to be considered for any new transaction type to be defined in the future.
In particular, for the existing transaction types in the current protocol, the new rules introduced by the proposal for a transaction to be valid are the following:
For every transaction type:
For any transaction to be valid, the balance of the sender account after applying the transaction has to be equal to or greater than
For balance transactions:
Additionally, for a balance transaction to be valid, the balance of the recipient account after applying the transaction has to be equal to or greater than
When a set of transactions are considered in the context of block validation, the rules specified in the Establish block validity by applying transactions sequentially LIP apply exactly in the same way.
This proposal changes the validation process for every transaction type. This will result in a soft fork because the set of valid transactions becomes strictly smaller. Particularly, a balance transaction will be invalid if it implies that either the balance of the sender or the balance of the recipient is lower than
minBalance after applying this transaction.