I suggest the temporary removal of the duniter-account pallet until Ğ1 migration. I think it is adding a level of complexity we are not yet able to manage.
This pallet let us customize the AccountData in a way allowing an account to exist without existential deposit because it is linked to an identity (sufficient set to 1 at creation). It also adds the RandomId feature that I think we do not need right now.
I think the tradeoff is good, but I would like to get your opinion:
Yes, it also adds the creation fee (look here). Removing the duniter-account pallet will remove the account creation fee. I did not see this before because it was confuse for me.
An other thing that bother me with this pallet is that I do not feel able to explain well to the community why we chose to have account creation fees. And if I try to search for reasons on this forum, the first thing I find searching “frais de création de compte” is a bug:
Ahahaha
I was thinking exactly same thing yesterday to prepare video to explain this !!
I have to explain this fees in gecko app (3gdev to common tresory) and cannot explain why as we have already 2 gdev of deposit …
But probably I’m just stupid, so please think and find the deep reason…
Deposit can be get back after account removing.
Not the fee. Maybe that the reason ?
This is not the way I think about Duniter development. It is not one person with the knowledge deciding and the other trying to figure out the reasons (that is “Macron style”), it is a collaborative project where informed decision are taken by consent (you can not consent to something you do not understand). I understand the emergency of migrating the Ğ1, but I still would like to make clear that this way of doing must be only temporary.
I mean if we don’t understand the goal of this fee, we can remove it, and see when we have problem, just do a runtime upgrade (which we prepared months before for sure, 'cause we known that could be a problem before it arrives).
This is my way of doing things, I understand this is not compatible with every situation.
I’m just here to develop clients side, i’m not feeling able to design low level protocol like Duniter, so i’ll not answer anymore about duniter protocol, because the only answers I could give, is this kind of anwser (no time to deep duniter code for now…)
Sorry, i was not talking to only YOU, but also tuxmain, and everyone reading theses lines.
And it was a bad joke, sorry for that.
yes, for sure.
but I think this is the real reason for account creation fees, in addition of deposit.
without fees, we could create and delete account for free (just 0.01 gdev for extrinsics fees), with just a balance of 3GDev (1 more that deposit, to be able to delete account)… So spamming time !
Extrinsic fee is supposed to correspond to the worse case. (if the actual cost is lower than the worse case, there is a refund) For a transfer, the worse case is recipient account creation plus issuer account deletion, so spamming account creation remains as expensive as it should be.
BUT maybe there is a trick, and something complicated related to fees, existential deposit and stuff, makes it necessary to have specific account creation fee.
I’ve found an earlier explanation in the random id topic. I still think this random id is a bad idea, but I’m not so sure about the account creation fee. Maybe with smaller values it would be clearer.
