Hacker News Reader

Comment by dibujante | Hacker News Reader

I don't really understand how a "$25 NFT with a $3300 transaction fee" can exist. Isn't that a $3325 NFT? The purchaser was willing to pay that.

It seems like the main difference is that the seller didn't receive what the purchaser was willing to pay, creating a rather unique dead-weight loss. Wouldn't it be better if the seller received the additional $3300?

View on HN

The purchaser paid that fee to the protocol (miner + burn), not the seller, to have their transaction processed before others in the mempool and settle the trade in < ~30 sec. They could have set a smaller fee ($10-100) and gone for lunch, and their transaction would have been accepted within an hour or two.

This is most likely a UX issue. Users aren’t aware they can set normal fees even during congested periods.

So it's more like me announcing that, if everyone in line lets me cut to the front, I will burn a $100 bill and enrich them all slightly through deflation. I wonder if any transactions ever just never get confirmed because they never pay enough gas fee to not be pre-empted?

Yes, and eventually drop out of the group of unprocessed transactions (mempool). You can cheaply try this for yourself. No permission needed to learn!

The burn is one part (and in many cases the majority of the transaction fee) but there is also an optional tip directed to miners which may incentivize them to include your transaction first.

Transactions that are below the market fee will just sit in mempool waiting for a miner to pick it up. Eventually these 'stuck' transactions will be pruned by nodes to free up room for more rewarding transactions.

I recently wrote a thread on how UI design changes could likely mitigate most of the overpaying that the Vice article is reporting on.[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1521427065437884417

Reply on news.ycombinator.com