Fee Model Revision

[alexanderbez]

Summary

Let's face it, the current fee model/structure is pretty rigid, confusing, and bit error prone. As it stands right now:

• Validators set their minimum fees via a flag or config
• Clients specify gas and fees
• The ante handler ensures:
  • fees >= (gas / 10000) + minFees (why are we adding on top of minFees???)
  • fees are deducted from user's account

Proposal

• A validator specifies minimum gas price (as suggested by @sunnya97)
• A client/user provides gas and fees, where fees / gas = gasPrice
• The ante handler ensures:
  • gasPrice >= minGasPrice
  • fees are deducted from user's account

e.g. gaiacli tx send ... --gas=200000 --fees="2stake"

/cc @sunnya97 @ValarDragon @cwgoes @zmanian

ref: #3044

---

For Admin Use

• Not duplicate issue
• Appropriate labels applied
• Appropriate contributors tagged
• Contributor assigned/self-assigned

[sunnya97]

--gas-price=0.00001stake

Coins amounts can't be decimals.

This gets into question about nano-atom UX. Should we allow users to type --gas-price="0.00001stake" in the CLI, but in the background turn it into 10000natom?

On a related note, I still don't get why we can't have sdk.Coin use sdk.Dec?

[rigelrozanski]

@sunnya97

Should we allow users to type --gas-price="0.00001stake" in the CLI, but in the background turn it into 10000natom?

correct

On a related note, I still don't get why we can't have sdk.Coin use sdk.Dec?

the use of nano atoms should be entirely in the client (CLI/REST) as determined by numerous previous discussions - by the time the requests are hitting abci they should already be in nano-atoms. The CLI will process input from atoms with decimals to nano-atoms before broadcasting any message (as you've said).

we should probably create an ADR for using nano-atoms instead of decimals. I'm going to open up another issue to organize my thoughts on this matter in the meanwhile

Let's please move this discussion to this new issue #3251

[alexanderbez]

Yes, all great points @rigelrozanski and @sunnya97. I have revised the description to revert back to --fees. In any case, the model will still hold that the client should do any parsing/translation before moving onto the ABCI.

[jackzampolin]

Related to: #1008