I have written a MIP (MWC Improvement Proposal). It can be found here: https://github.com/snape479/proposals/blob/master/mip-0001.mediawiki
I have also started a discussion on discord. Please let me know if there are any comments/suggestions regarding this proposal.
2 Likes
Should kernel have transaction fee and burned amount? I believe Tx fees still need to be paid, miners need reward.
Also this kernel will be different form others because it can’t be compacted. The blockchain will need to keep it forever because it affects circulating supply.
From attacking point of view we need to think as well. If attacker knows amount he might substitute output with burn kernel. We need to think about that as well.
Yes, it would have the fee as well.
Can you explain what you mean by compacted? Aren’t Kernels kept forever? (offsets may be updated, but the actual Kernel is kept I believe). How would an output be substituted? If one of the outputs of the transaction were switched, the signatures would not match right?
I think we should be fine with all compacting, cut through and other stuff. I was thinking about surface of attack.
This proposal doesn’t increase it because this new kernel is equal to what we already have with a mining fee. Any attack that is possible with this kernel, should be possible with a regular kernel is it is done by miner.
I think we should be good, we don’t adding any new opportunity of attacking. We can build the transactions as we do now and we should be good.
The only issue will be a circulating supply. It will need to change how we are calculating it, but it is not a big deal.