Codecov Report

Merging #791 into master will increase coverage by 4.83%.
The diff coverage is 61.42%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #791      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   38.73%   43.57%   +4.83%     
==========================================
  Files         176      177       +1     
  Lines       12489    12547      +58     
==========================================
+ Hits         4838     5467     +629     
+ Misses       7651     7080     -571

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 87ea7c6...5c1db4e. Read the comment docs.

I think I get the idea.. reuse network fee to cover system fee costs too, right?
Is it to avoid a possible "double spending" of the fee?
dont you.prefer the concept of witness/vscript consuming netfee, and script consuming sysfee?

Currently you don't pay for verification execution, with thi change you will pay

Why not using NetworkFee for verification?

Why we don't unify both fees in only one?

sys_fee is distributed to NEO holders. net_fee is distributed to consensus nodes.

Do you think that fees to CN are important, Erik?
It wouls be nice to burn these fees, like Ripple...kkkkk

Should we charge both the transaction size and the verification? Or should take the maximum of them?

I think that in verification we should pay for both, and in the invocation for the script execution. @vncoelho ripple could create more when they want 😂

But for me, only neo holders should receive the gas, CNs doesn't need it because, ussally, they are holders

So the algorithm is:

1. Gas = InvocationCost
2. NetworkFee = VerificationCost + tx.Length * FeePerByte

Is it correct?

Another way is:

1. Gas = InvocationCost
2. NetworkFee = max(VerificationCost, tx.Length * FeePerByte)

I preffer the first one

I think that we should have only one fee field, and CNs take his part from the same field.

@erikzhang @shargon I like a lot this direction. Could we consider Turing incomplete design for verification? So we dont even need to charge for length, only verification.

So I propose option 3: xD
Gas = invocation cost
NetworkFee = verification cost (no loops)

If not possible, I go with Erik option 1: netcost = verifcost + transmission cost

I think that we should have only one fee field, and CNs take his part from the same field.

Unified fee system is nice too. verification fee would go to CN, integer invocation fee to claims, and the rest burned?

We should remove low priority transactions from PolicyContract and MemoryPool.

I am worry about receiving Neo in my wallet and not being able to transfer it because i don't have enough gas. Other blockchains use the same token, so they could not have this problem, but we have two

Don't worry. In NEO 3.0, we will distribute some gas in genesis block.

but if one user receive one neo, how much time he need to wait for generate enough gas for transfer it?

Done from my side

Trying to make blockbase serialization more readable.

In other PR please

But I'm not understanding it hahaha

Merge?

Merge, merge, merge... 😂