►
From YouTube: Post London EIP-1559 Assessment Part II (Breakout #13)
Description
A
Okay,
let
me
grab
the
agenda
again
for
anybody
in
the
chat
who
hasn't
seen
it.
Yet.
This
is
the
second
post
london
breakout
call,
I
think,
number
13.
thanks
everybody
for
joining.
I
appreciate
people
taking
time
to
help
us.
You
know,
share
your
feedback
and
any
issues
that
you've
had
like.
I
said
we
don't
have
a
ton
on
the
agenda,
so
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
open
space
for
discussion
or
us
to
just
look
at
each
other's
faces.
Maybe
so
the
first
thing
jake.
A
If
you
want
to
kick
us
off,
that's
fine
or
we
can
start
with
something
else,
but
be
really
cool.
Something
I've
been
looking
forward
to
is
seeing
a
little
bit
inside
of
how
the
other
wallets
have
been
handling
1559.
I
know
we've
got
a
couple
other
teams
here
and
I'd
love
to
hear
from
them
as
well,
if
they'd
like
to
say
anything
but
jake.
If
you
want
to
start
give
us
your
general
thoughts
or
if
you
have
a
presentation
prepared.
B
B
I
think
like
overall,
I
think
it's
going
well,
but
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
noise
on
like
twitter
and
public
places.
We
like,
we
definitely
learned.
We
shook
up
people's
workflows,
who
use
advanced
settings
so
there
there
was
the
thought
of
advanced
settings.
We
should
represent
how
the
actual
fields
are
in
the
ui
so
like
give
them
max
priority
fee.
B
Give
them
a
max
fee,
don't
try
to
sugarcoat
it
for
advanced
users,
and
I
we
definitely
learned
that
people
who
are
drifting
towards
advanced
fields
are
not
always
people
who,
like
truly
understand
how
1559
works.
You
know
people
are
saying
switch
back
to
the
old
controls.
We
don't
like
these
new
controls.
These
are
dumb
and
it's
like
yeah,
so
so
they're
they're,
even
advanced
type
users.
I
guess,
are
not
as
up
to
date
as
we
had
hoped
or
assumed.
B
But
what
we
are
learning
is
that
that
vocal
group
of
people
seems
to
be
a
very
small
group
of
people,
so
we
we've
been
tracking
some
analytics
and
our
analytics
are
rough
because
we
don't
track
a
ton
of
things
in
details
and
for
privacy
reasons,
but
one
one
reason
stat
that
was
interesting
is
and
kevin
is
on.
The
call
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
it
was
20
of
people
have
only
attempted
to
edit
to
click
the
edit
button
of
a
transaction
in
the
past
seven
days.
C
B
They
said
something
bad
about
it
or
good
about
it,
so
it
is
a
small
number
of
users
that
are
getting
into
there,
but
we
definitely
need
to
support
that.
You
like
support
that
use
case
a
little
bit
better.
So
that's
one
thing
we're
really
focusing
on
is
like:
how
do
we
improve
this
advanced
edit
experience?
B
That
could
also
be
dangerous
because
we're
seeing
really
big
price
bikes
right,
like
so
there's
kind
of
consistent
price
bikes
with
nft
drops
or
whatever
it
may
be,
and
in
those
cases
we
actually,
you
know
we
want
people
to
at
least
be
aware
that
they
they
potentially
could
pay
less
and
they
don't
have
to
pay
market
value.
If
they're
willing
to
wait
for
their
transaction
to
go
through
and
going
into
1559
there.
I
think
there
was
also
an
assumption
that
you
know,
let's
focus
less
on
editing
there.
B
Maybe
there's
less
value
in
waiting
and
paying
a
lower
price.
Since
we,
you
know,
we
have
better
estimates,
we
can
just
kind
of
give
you
the
estimate.
You'll
go
you
go
through
with
it.
The
transaction
will
go
through
soon
and
that's
great
with
these
price
spikes.
I
think
we
need
to
support
like
the
use
case
of
like
all
weights
like
I'll
set,
my
transaction
I'll
queue
it
up
and
I'll
wait
for
the
base
fee
to
come,
come
down
dramatically
in
the
case
of
a
price
bike.
B
Also,
on
the
flip
side
for
people
trying
to
get
into
nft
drops
and
stuff,
they
use
the
advanced
controls,
even
though
I
don't
think
they
fully
understood
within
metamask.
Like
what
I
mean,
they
were
only
editing
one
field
before
there
was
the
the
gas
price
right,
so
it
was
much
easier
to
edit
now
there's
a
couple
of
fields,
and
you
know
I've
sat
in
a
couple
discords
with
like
kind
of
tea
drops
and
stuff,
and
people
were
talking
about
like
what
do.
B
I
change
my
gas
settings
and
they're
discussing
it
and
now
that
we
don't
now
that
we
don't
have
like
so
our
basic
estimate
right
now
are
low
medium
high,
there's,
not
a
huge
variation
between
them,
they're
they're,
all
kind
of
in
the
same
range.
So
we
we
need
to
be,
I
think,
have
much
lower
options
and
much
higher
options,
much
higher
options
for
those
when
there
is
a
price
spike
and
there
might
be
a
gas
war
coming,
allowing
people
to
be
easier.
B
You
know
to
access
that
type
of
setting
easier,
trying
to
think.
I
think
those
were
the
high
points
of
what
we
have
learned
yeah.
So
I'm
happy
to
talk
more
about
it
for
more
details
or
answering
questions
we
are
going
so
we
are
looking
at
I
mean
we
we
launched
with
a
you
know
with
a
v1.
We
had
improvements
in
mind,
so
some
of
these
learnings
have
shifted
that
we're
we're
going
to
be
rolling
out
a
new
ui
after
another
round
of
user
testing.
B
A
Awesome
yeah,
I
know
that's
really
great
perspective.
I
remember
one
of
the
things
you
mentioned
was
a
lot
of
the
assumptions
that
you
had
gone
into.
The
design
with
were
either
flipped
or
you
know
completely
wrong.
What
were
do
you
remember
what
a
few
of
those
were,
or
maybe
I'm
remembering
somebody
else
talking
about
it,
but
I
think
it
was
somebody
from
metamask.
B
I
think
the
narrative
of
you
know
base
fee
and
tip
and
like
just
the
language
that
has
been
thrown
out
like
it
just
didn't,
match
the
two
fields
that
we
put
in
there
right,
so
it
could
be
as
simple
as
changing
the
names
of
them
or
you
know,
making
them
a
little
more
accessible,
so
that
I
mean
that
was
one
assumption
that
we
were
wrong
about.
The
other,
I
think,
was
that
our
range
of
estimates,
like
the
algorithm
shouldn't,
be
as
wide.
D
So
I
think
the
learnings
here
is
that
these
spikes
will
happen
and
we
have
to
account
for
that
and
but
at
the
same
time,
the
majority
of
time.
You
know
users
will
choose
the
middle
option,
but
we
have
to
also
provide
the
flexibility
in
cases
where
you
know.
Users
want
to,
you,
know,
be
fast
or
be
slow
or
you
know
have
be
be
adaptable
as
much
as
possible.
E
B
B
Use
them
realistically,
you'd
have
to
be
you'd,
have
to
have
something
pulled
up.
Another
tab,
you'd
have
to
be
looking
at
a
you
know,
a
chart
of
current
base
fee
and
stuff
to
well.
I
shouldn't
say
that
they're
they're
default
populated
with
their
estimates,
but
you'd
have
to
understand
what
what
that
meant
to
go
off
the
rails
with
them.
So,
oh.
F
B
Yeah,
the
the
the
new,
so
we
are
going
into
user
testing
now
and
trying
to
you
know,
shift
these
fields
around
a
little
bit
from
what
I
have
gathered
and
I
think
which
makes
sense
with
just
like
the
narrative
around
1559.
It's
it's
base
fee
and
priority
here
right.
That's
how
people,
people
who
understand
15
59
think
about
because
that's
that's
yeah.
C
E
B
E
E
So
for
for
users
who
aren't
like
ultra
in
the
eip1559
world,
it
doesn't
make
sense
it
like
gives
them
more
work
to
do
if
you
make
them
do
the
math
of
like
having
the
total
and
then
subtracting
the
priority
fee
versus
having
the
base
and
adding
the
priority
together.
That
seems
to
be
like
the
most
intuitive
way,
but
so
because,
technically
it
should
be
max
fee
right.
G
G
I
mean
so
so.
The
protocol
does
not
allow
you
to
set
a
max
based
fee,
so
there's
no
way
that
your
ui
can
be
asking
user
for
max
base
fee
because
that's
impossible.
You
might
be
asking
for
something
else
and
then
calling
a
max
based
fee.
But
like
there's
no
way
you
could
actually
be
putting
that
into
a
transaction
right.
B
B
Fee
which
would
be
the
difference
between
your
yeah
and
that's
that's
that's
one
thing
that
has
been
confusing
is
like
the
max
fee,
like
people
look
at
when
they
see
priority
fee
and
max
fee
they're
like
well
where's
the
base
fee.
What's
my
base
fee,
so
you
could
call
the
field
max
fee
and
then
explain
around
it
that
well.
Actually
this
is
your
base
fee.
B
G
What
what
I
worry
about
just
a
little
bit
is
optimizing
user
experience
for
these
users
that
have
ever
heard
of
base
fee.
I
would
prefer-
and
of
course,
as
each
wallet
can
do
what
they
want.
I
would
prefer
to
optimize,
though,
for
users
who
have
never
heard
of
base
fees
or
party
fees
or
transaction
fees
or
anything
they're
brand
new
to
ethereum
and
they're.
Like
I
don't
know,
there's
a
fee
here
and
I
feel
like
this
optimization
is
kind
of
special
case
for
the
current
set
of
users.
G
B
G
B
The
case,
like
our
ui,
you
have
to
go
three
levels
deep
before
we
say
anything
about
base
fee.
We
don't
talk
about
base
b.
We
don't
talk
about
priority
fee,
we're
optimizing
for
we're
optimizing
for
somebody
who
knows
nothing
but
they're.
We
are
like
what
we're
hearing
about.
Is
this
like
20
use
case
of
like
advanced
users
who
are
confused.
H
D
D
A
Gotcha
thanks
yeah
one
of
the
things
I'm
tracking
pretty
closely
is
or
as
sort
of
a
proxy
for
how
all
the
user-facing
interfaces
are
working
is.
If
you
scroll
to
the
bottom
of
the
link,
I
just
sent
legacy
versus
dynamic
fees.
We've
been
hovering
around
60-ish
percent
for
the
past
week
and
it's
actually
decreased
in
the
past
few
days.
A
E
Oh
yeah,
so
well
I
I
had
another
question
for
jake
about
what
you
guys
are
using
for
the
multiple
on
on
the
base
fee,
and
so
I
assume
for
like
the
priority
fee,
you
might
be
using
the
the
expose
like
histogram
or
or
you
know
what,
whatever
the
last
few,
whatever
priority
fees
are.
But
what
are
you
guys
using
for
your
multiple
on
the
base
fee
in
general
or
like?
How
do
you
decide
how
to
do
that.
E
Oh
yeah,
because
because
you
know,
we've
seen
a
few
different
places
where
you
know
the
the
the
base
v
is
like
consistently
2xed
and
we
from
like
the
data.
It
doesn't
seem
like
that's
necessary
and
so
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
be
smarter
about
it,
so
that
we're
not
like
over
bloating
the
price
to
our
users.
I
E
So
I
feel
like
maybe
I'm
forgetting
something,
but
my
understanding
was
like,
like
2x
base
v
plus
some
tip
was
like
the
max
that
people
were
recommending
earlier
on.
So
I
just
mean,
like
the
multiple
like
the
two
times,
the
base
c
plus
the
part
like
so
ignoring
the
priority,
ignoring
yeah
so
ignoring
the
party
just
keeping
like.
I
A
Yeah
there
was
some
initial
discussion
a
few
weeks
ago
about
it
could
possibly
be
defaulted
to
1.2
or
1.3.
Two
might
be
a
little
high
right,
but
there's
no,
I
don't
think
any
hard
research,
yet
that's
probably
on
part
of
a
spec
burner
for
now,
but
definitely
something
to.
If
anybody
knows
of
a
deeper
dive
into
this
I'd
love
to
see
it.
G
I
think
the
important
question
to
ask
is
what
what
experience
do
you
want
for
your
users
and
how
many
of
them
are
you
willing
to
have
a
bad
experience
and
that's
the
trade-off
right.
So
if
you
set
that
too
low,
you
will
have
a
larger
percentage
of
users
who
will
end
up
with
a
bad
experience
if
things
do
not
go
well
for
them,
and
so
I
think
a
very
important
question
is
to
decide
what
what
your
cutoff
is
like.
G
E
Yeah,
I
guess
like
if
you
could,
if
you
could,
keep
the
bands
right
the
multiple
of
this
pretty
tight
and
then
just
manipulate
the
priority
feed
kind
of
competing
in
the
priority
fee.
In
that
sense,
then,
you
kind
of
opt
like
you're,
you're,
maximizing
kind
of
their
you're,
minimizing
that
the
bloat
that
they
see
and
you're
maximizing
how
quickly
they
can
actually
successfully
get
in
that
time.
So
yeah,
I
was
wondering
like
jake.
B
Yeah
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
with
like
everybody
talking
about
this.
It's
like
this
is
like
the
hardest
part,
because
so
I
I'm
not
the
best
person
to
speak
about
the
exact
numbers.
I
could
probably
throw
some
out,
but
we've
been
changing
them
so
frequently,
but
they're
all
within
the
range
that
everybody
said
like
1.2
to
2.
B
and
the
the
problem.
Is
it's
like
the
happy
sad
user
right
like
if
you
take?
If
you
take
the
middle
case
and
you
try
to
make
98
of
your
users
happy
or
wherever,
which
is
pretty
much
what
our
middle
case
does
you're
totally,
not
supporting
the
use
case
of
somebody
who
wants
to
save
money
in
a
spike
right
because
you're
responding
to
the
market.
C
B
Quickly
that
that
medium
price
is
relatively
high
to
the
past
two
hours,
six
hours
or
whatever
so
yeah
that
middle
one
is
the
tricky
one
like
what
is
the
default
and
like
how-
and
I
think
we
in
order
to
not
disappoint
users
we
have
to
be.
We
have
to
show
a
higher
max
fee
right,
so
that
transactions
don't
get
stuck.
We
have
to
have
people
opt-in
to
a
potentially
dangerous
situation
where
they
have
to
wait,
and
I
I'm
sorry
I
don't
have
the
exact
number.
B
E
E
B
E
Paying
low
you
don't
want
to
have
this
huge
huge
range
of
prices
right,
so
you'd
expect
actually
to
keep
it
tighter
for
even
the
low
just
because
you
don't
want
them
to
overpay
and
then
for
the
like,
if
they're
really
urgent,
you
also
want
to
keep
the
you
know.
There's
like
these
people
who
want
this
transaction
in
now
or
or
never,
and
in
which
case
you
want
to
keep
the
multiple,
also
pretty
tight
and
just
bump
up
the
priority
fee
quite
a
bit
so
that
you're
competing
and
getting
into
asap.
E
B
B
If
you
don't
get
in
immediately,
and
then
you
crank
your
priority
fee
really
high
up,
so
that
it
gets
accepted
immediately
and
if
it
doesn't
go
through
well,
then
you
just
gotta
wait
and
you
cancel
the
transaction
worst
case
scenario
is
like
you
miss
the
ride
up,
and
then
you
get
hit
on
the
way
down
when
it
comes
back
down
to
your
max
base
fee.
The
the
other
way
you
would
set
a
high
is,
you
would
set
a
super
high
max
base
fee
and
a
super
high
priority
fee
and
then
you're.
B
L
G
So
I'm
not
a
wallet
dev,
but
what
I've
noticed.
This
is
anecdotal.
That
barnaby
may
have
better
data.
I've
noticed
is
there
tends
to
be
relatively
few
trends
outside
of
day
to
day
seasonality,
with
the
exception
of
when
there's
one
of
these
nft
sales,
in
which
case
there's
no
way
your
user
is
going
to
get
in,
like
the
only
users
that
get
in
over
those
like
5
to
thirty
minutes
that
empty
sales
are
going
on
is
if
they're,
very
professional.
G
You
know
bots
stuff
like
that,
and
so,
if
you
ignore
that,
because
no
normal
user
is
going
to
be
able
to
beat
that,
then
I
think
the
trends
are
just
generally
general
seasonality.
You
know
like
at
what
whatever
time
it
is.
So
that's
sorry
at
like
8
a.m.
Utc
daily
is
the
cheap
time
of
the
day.
You
know,
and
sundays
tend
to
be
cheaper,
the
cheapest
day
of
the
week
so
like
that
seasonality
is
there,
but
those
are
very
long-term
trends.
G
D
Yeah
we've
been,
we've
been
tracking,
doing
analytics
as
well,
and
we're
trying
to
make
some
sense
out
of
these
spikes
that
are
happening.
Is
it?
Is
it
regular?
Is
it
consistent
and
there's
no
consistency
to
this
at
all,
so
it's
it's
very
hard
to
to
create
any
type
of
predictive
algorithms.
Based
on
that.
J
A
A
Mostly,
I
think
almost
all
interfaces
are
going
to
put
something
in
there.
The
question
is
what
the
default
suggestion
is.
I
think
that
could
definitely
use
some
work,
whether
it's
too
high.
I
know
one
of
the
issues
on
the
agenda
we
can
get
to
that
after,
but
it's
either
a
presentation
issue
or
the
I
think
it's
the
web.
A
3.Js
is
if
you're,
using
an
older
version
pre-1559
it's
suggesting
the
wrong
the
tip
the
wrong
priority
fee,
but
I
don't
think
that
there
are
a
ton
of
transactions
going
in
if
any
that
have
zero
tip.
I
personally
have
said
the
lowest
I
sent,
I
think,
was,
I
think,
point
zero
one
quay
it
took
maybe
15
minutes
so
much
much
longer
than
typical,
but
that's
the
lowest
I've
sent
and
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
standard
for
every
other
user.
G
J
Well,
I
guess
I
was
asking
the
latter
the
reason
I'm
asking,
because
we're
working
on
the
eye
right
now
and
their
version
that
we
came
up
with
is
we
actually
did
not
present
the
base
fee
at
all.
We
have
the
three
priority
versions
like
normal,
high
and
highest.
I
believe,
and
all
of
them
include
the
tip
in
them.
G
Yeah,
the
the
network,
the
gossip
network,
shouldn't
actually
propagate
any
transactions
that
have
zero
priority
if
they,
if
they
are
that's
a
bug
or
a
very,
very
altruistic
person
on
the
network
somewhere.
As
far
as
miners,
there
was
some
miners
initially
that
had
some
mis
configured
deployments
of
their
nodes
around
london
and
they
were
mining
transactions
with
zero
priority
fee.
I
believe
they
are
now
all
fixed,
and
so
a
your
transaction
will
not
propagate
if
it's
got
too
low
of
a
priority.
G
Or
shouldn't
and
b,
even
if
it
did
no
one
will
mine
it.
If
you're
running
like
your
own
local
miner,
then
you
could
mine
one
with
zero
party
fee
and
minor
payouts
may
do
this,
but
as
far
as
user
interfaces
for
end
users,
you
definitely
need
to
include
a
priority
fee
on
everything
and
I
wouldn't
recommend
going
below
one
like
below
one.
You
probably
won't
propagate,
and
so
your
transaction
will
just
kind
of
get
lost
in
the
ether.
Sorry
ethers,
they're
lost
in
the
space
between
things.
B
B
B
Oh,
have
the
user
over
pay,
even
though
I
mean
point
one
guy
and
one
guy
is
probably
not
a
huge
difference
and
then
that's
what
the
like
a
higher
option
should
be
for
is
like
saying,
hey,
I
want
to
make
sure
I
get
it
like.
I'm
buying
insurance
against
a
sudden
spike,
I'm
there's
an
nft
drop,
I'm
going
into
a
gas
war
or
something
and
that's
what
that
setting
should
be
so
like
the
medium
in
a
perfect
world
would
be
much
more
flexible
to
medium
meaning.
B
G
G
G
I
will
go
up
to
like
beyond.
That
is,
if
I'm
doing
some
sort
of
highly
competitive
action
like
I'm
actually
trying
to
you
know,
buy
an
fft
or
whatever
like
something
where
I
I
know
there's
because
of
information.
I
have
that's
outside
of
the
scope
of
what
a
wallet
has
like
I
know
about.
What's
going
on
in
the
real
world,
I
know
there's
going
to
be
a
burst
of
activity
and
I
want
to
participate
in
that
burst.
G
K
I
actually
just
had
a
quick
question
like
I
think
I've
been
using
2.5
for
literally
everything
and
I've
never
not
had
anything
included
in
the
next
like
block
or
two
are
we
seeing
people
with
like
like?
Is
there
actually
any
meaningful
difference
between
two
between
2.5
and
like
eight,
are
we
seeing
cases
where
there's
a
bunch
of
things
in
the
transaction
pool
sitting
at
2.5
and
not
getting
mined?
K
G
So
the
time
you
need
a
high
priority
fee
is
when
you
have
consec
multiple
consecutive
blocks
that
are,
I
guess,
there's
two
situations,
one.
If
miners
are
setting
the
minimum
priority
fee,
they'll
mine
higher
than
one
we've,
been
advising
miners
to
set
it
to
one,
because
that
is
above
their
opportunity
cost,
and
so
you
know
a
spherical
miner
will
set
it
to
one
because
that's
the
rational.
K
Yeah,
so
it
seems
to
me
like
the
more
important
thing
to
actually
set.
Is
that
multiplier
rather
like
that
the
priority
should
almost
just
kind
of
always
be
hardcoded,
whatever
value
you
want
to
use
for
uncle
risk
plus
mev
risk
whatever
so
is
priority,
even
the
important
thing
to
modify
like
if
you're
talking
like
high
high
medium
low,
like
it
almost
depends
what
you
really
care
about
like,
I
feel
like
the
sorry,
it's
kind
of
loud
here.
K
A
A
G
And
just
for
clarity
on
my
unhelpful
comment
there
I
do.
I
do
appreciate
that
metamask
is
repeatedly
updating
the
the
base
fee.
What
bugs
me
is
the
fact
that
the
whole
ui
freezes-
and
it's
like
there's
so
many
times
about
to
click
a
button,
and
it
just
goes
out
from
under
me,
and
I
have
to
wait
a
second
and
then
I
try
to
click
it
again,
but
another
block
comes
really
quick
and
I
miss,
and
it
drives
me
nuts,
so.
K
G
C
C
E
That
would
be
the
reason
why
you
don't
care
about
the
current
base
fee
being
part
of
the
ui,
whereas
I
think
most
people
would
want
to
know
like
hey
I'm
in
this
advanced
setting.
What
does
this
number
mean
relative
to
what
the
current
state
of
the
world
is?
I
assume,
and
so
yes,
that's
interesting,
I
think.
G
C
G
Out
you
know,
is
this
actually
valuable
to
me
like
when
you
go
out
and
buy
a
louis
vuitton
bag
you're,
you
know
you're
not
paying
how
much
the
bag
is
worth
to
you
you're
paying.
How
much
is
the
bag
worth
to
society
and
to
everybody
around
you
and
I
think
humans-
that's
very
common
in
humans
to
have
that
sort
of
behavior
when
it
comes
to
pricing
things,
and
I
think
they
apply
that
here
and
so
like.
I
want
to
know
what
a
normal
price
or
a
good
price
for
gas
is
just
like.
G
I
want
to
know
what
a
normal
price
for
apples
is,
and
I'm
trusting
society
to
have
priced
that
appropriately,
and
you
know,
if
that's
what
it
costs,
that's
what
it
costs
they're,
not
thinking.
Oh,
this
is
worth
this
much
to
me
if
it
costs
more
than
that,
I'm
going
to
go
somewhere
else
or
I'm
not
going
to
eat
an
apple
or
I'm
going
to
buy
a
different
bag.
A
G
I
can
tell
you
what
the
I
can
tell
you.
The
problem
is
so
the
I
I'm
pretty
sure
the
problem
is.
Is
applications
are
sending
metamask
a
a
transaction
and
they're
pre-populating
for
what,
if
some
applications
populate
the
gas
price
in
there
and
so
they're
telling
metamask
use
this
gas
price
and
then
metamask
is
saying:
hey.
You
told
us
to
app
told
us
to
use
this
gas
price
so
we're
going
to
use
this
gas
price
and
with
the
change
to
1559
those
applications.
G
You
know
they
are
not
updated
for
one
five:
five,
nine,
so
they're
just
still
doing
the
old
thing,
they're,
maybe
using
a
gas
oracle
or
something,
and
so
metamask
is
doing
what
the
application
told
us
to
do,
which
is
set
at
gas
price,
even
though
that
behavior
is
probably
not
what's
actually
desired
anymore.
Yes,.
M
Getting
to
you
go
ahead
so
at
least
from
eating
side.
That's
actually
not
true.
We've
never
suggested
a
guest
price
either
before
or
now
so
we
don't
know
right
now,
whether
it's
something
that
metamask
is
doing
or
the
library
what
pjs
is
doing
but
yeah
it
it
there's
two
parts
yeah
it
it's
giving
those
two
same
numbers
and
at
least
on
metamask.
There
is
a
ui
that
says
it
is
suggesting
this
gas
price
and
yeah.
We
don't
actually
know
what
to
do,
because
we've
never.
M
So
we
have
a
fix
for
that
already.
The
thing
with
that
is
that
if
we
push
that
fix,
then,
as
far
as
we
understand
the,
if
we
do
that,
then
users
who
use
ledger
at
least
until
it
was
launched
today,
wouldn't
be
able
to
use
the
right
contract
feature
at
all,
which
is
an
even
bigger
problem.
So
we
just
decided
to
delay
until
that
ledger.
Support
is
rolled
up.
A
Okay,
that's
good
to
know
but
yeah.
If
anybody
comes
across
this
in
an
application
or
finds
other
issues
similar
to
this
just
forward
it
to
me-
and
I
can
try
and
maintain
a
list
and
reach
out
to
these
teams
unless
you
want
to
do
it
yourself,
but
I'm
more
than
happy
to
take
that
on
so
just
forward
me
the
name
of
the
application
or
the
team,
that's
working
on
it
and
I
can
see
what
I
can
do
about
that.
G
G
I
Yeah,
for
my
experience
at
least
well,
I
was
using
like
metamask,
I
totally
updated
it
and
I
could
not
like
sign
type
2
transactions
for
a
while
until
I
used
metamask
with
a
pager
and
then
I
saw
that
it
was
actually
worked
out.
So
I
think
that's
what
somebody's
saying
earlier
that
ledger
didn't
support
it.
At
least
the
the
combination
of
two
wasn't
supported.
So
then
metamask
was
following
back
to
that
zero
transactions.
I
G
M
K
So
I
actually
had
a
quick
question,
because
somebody
mentioned
that
they
well
michael
was
saying:
he
just
sets
the
price
he
wants
and
lets
it
fly,
and
so
I
have
not
experienced
this
like.
I
said
I've
been
kind
of
choosing
my
times
well
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
giving
good
priority
fees,
but
I've
seen
people
complaining
that
they're
setting
a
base
fee
and
they
get
this
error
that
says
transaction.
K
Oh,
maybe
it's
a
gas
price
says
transaction
gas
price
is
too
low
for
the
next
block,
which
has
a
base
fee
per
gas
of
xxx.
So
is
there?
How
does
the
transaction
pool
memory
pool
yeah
make
sure,
like
you
can't
just
set
some
low
base
fee
that
I
want?
This
is
how
much
I'm
willing
to
pay
and
send
it
to
the
network,
because
if
it's
too
low,
it
seems
like
the
memory
pool
just
won't,
adopt
it
right,
which
it
kind
of
has
to
do
for
a
ddos
mitigation.
G
Well,
so
there's
a
few
nuances
here:
if
you
are
using
your
own
node,
your
own
node
will
always
accept
your
transactions,
no
matter
how
low
they
are
and
they'll
hold
on
to
them
until
they
can
gossip
them,
and
so,
if
you're
connected
to
an
own
node,
then
this
just
works,
which
I
admit
I
have
my
own
node
and
so
this
works.
For
me
great,
I
send
it
basically
send
my
transaction
to
my
node,
my
node
just
hangs
on
to
it
and
will
eventually
gossip
it
providers
like
infura
and
alchemy.
G
I
can't
speak
to
exactly
what
they
do,
but
a
reasonable
strategy
would
be
that
if
you're
a
pain
subscriber,
they
would
do
that
behavior
and
if
you're
a
free
subscriber,
they
would
say,
hey
too
low,
we're
not
going
to
hang
onto
your
stuff
for
you
for
free
again,
I
don't
know
what
they
actually
do,
but
that
probably
influences
the
behavior
you
get.
And
that
being
said,
there
is
like
as
long
as
you're
higher
than
the
lowest
person
in
the
mempool
right
now,
you'll
get
gossip,
and
so
you
don't
have
to
be.
G
G
K
Transactions
because
I
mean
it's
pretty
safe
to
broadcast
a
transaction
whose
base
fee
is
less
than
let's
say
what
let's
say
equal
to
one
half
the
current
base
fee,
because
you
can
do
that
relatively
assured:
you're
not
going
to
get
mine
anytime
soon,
and
that
means
you
can
kind
of
evict
people.
Doesn't
it.
G
If
you
plan
on
doing
a
transaction
like
in
three
days,
you
say:
okay,
I
can
use
this
account
like
there's
one
account
to
consume
one
spot
in
the
mempool
for
three
days,
knowing
that
in
three
days
I'm
just
gonna
bump
the
gas
price
and
it
will
go
through
and
it'll
be
fine.
So
there's
a
little
nuance
there.
But
again
it's
it's
a
expensive
enough
attack
that
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
that
particular
vector
from
a
ddos
standpoint.
K
C
K
That's
kind
of
my
concern
right:
it's
like
somebody
who's
using
underwater
transactions,
not
because
they're
trying
to
attack
the
system,
but
because
they
just
they
want
a
cheap
fee
and
they're
willing
to
wait.
And
so
I
feel
like
they're
like
the
two
different
things
are
kind
of
at
odds
with
each
other.
Because
if
I'm
willing
to
wait
three
days
and
I
put
some
low
fee
in
there,
I
don't
be
evicted
because
someone
else
kind
of
has
another
one.
That
they're
like
assuming
all
legitimate
users.
G
Yeah,
you
definitely
can,
which
is
why,
if
you're
going
to
do
this
sort
of
low
balling,
you
should
have
a
node,
that's
willing
to
prioritize
your
transactions
in
its
own
local
mempool,
such
as
your
own
node
or
again.
I
don't
know
if
inferior
or
alchemy
and
these
providers
do
this.
But
hypothetically,
if
you're
a
paid
subscriber
to
those
services,
it
would
be
reasonable
for
them
to
keep
them.
Consider
your
transactions,
local.
G
So
the
the
only
rule
is
that
each
client
on
the
network,
each
node
in
the
network
sets,
has
a
mempool
size,
so
they
have
like
a
certain
number
of
transactions
or
bytes
depending
on
the
client
that
they're
willing
to
hold,
and
then,
if
that
fills
up
which
it
usually
does
eventually,
then
the
lowest
one
gets
kicked
out.
Basically,
so
it's
just
a
simple
the
top
end
users
get
to
stay.
G
C
You
know
it
it.
It
will
rebroadcast
those
two
when
the
prices
come
down
to
those
lower
fee
ones,
and
I
think
other
infrastructure
providers
might
be
doing
themselves
if,
for
example,
they're
measuring
the
total
size
of
the
mempool,
which
is
typically
around
150
000
or
more
entries,
then
you
kind
of
have
to
you
would
typically
be
running
a
few
nodes
with
extremely
large
members
to
do
that.
C
G
G
C
I
I
wouldn't
quite
characterize
it
that
way,
but
I
I
think
that
you
can
you
can.
You
can
have
very
large
mempools
to
measure
how
big
the
mempool
is
and
those
can
then
sort
of
rebroadcast
another
another
item
there
is
that
in,
for
example,
guest
the
you
can
there's
a
setting
that
will
tell
how
long
it'll
hold
on
to
a
transaction
if
it
does
not
hear
a
rebroadcast
of
it
and
I
think
the
default
for
that
is
three
hours.
A
A
There
are
some
parts
of
the
ecosystem
which
are
you
know,
leaning
into
this
and
really
trying
to
make
it
work
for
the
users,
and
there
are
some
who
are
sort
of
sitting
back
and
just
completely
not
engaging,
and
I'm
really
excited
the
fact
that
people
are
on
this
call
is
that
you're
engaging
with
the
ethereum
ecosystem
as
it
changes
as
it
evolves.
So,
thank
you
from
me
personally,
I
think
1559
is
it's
gonna
take
time,
but
it'll
it'll
be
an
improvement.
I
think
it
already
has
been
an
improvement.
A
A
I
think
we
covered
all
of
the
issues
and
if
anything
else
comes
up,
I
know
last
time
we
automatically
set
the
next
meeting.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
do
that
right
now.
I
think
what
would
probably
be
most
fruitful
is
when
we
have
more
data-
and
I
know
barnaby's
been
a
little
busy-
not
that
we're
expecting
him
to
do
all
of
our
data
analysis,
but
he's
definitely
got
the
the
chops
for
it.