社区讨论 | 以太坊经典（ETC）是否应引入EIP-1559费用机制？

金色财经Published on 2025-10-29Last updated on 2025-10-29

以太坊经典（Ethereum Classic）与以太坊之间最持久的协议差异之一，在于对1559类型交易的支持。

2020年的DeFi之夏与随之而来的NFT浪潮，使以太坊网络陷入持续拥堵。矿工为最大化收益，倾向于维持区块上限不变，迫使用户通过提高手续费竞争区块空间。该策略虽为矿工带来丰厚回报，却严重损害了用户体验。为解决该问题，EIP-1559 被纳入以太坊伦敦升级，于 2021 年 8 月 5 日生效。该升级旨在稳定用户支付的手续费、管理 ETH 发行量，并重新平衡用户与矿工之间的激励机制。

目前 ETC 网络的负载并不像当时的 ETH 那般高，但通过实施类似机制，ETC 可以在未来区块空间需求上升前，提前解决用户体验差的问题，同时还能增强现有工具与 ETH 的兼容性。ETH 通过引入基础费这一新变量重塑了手续费市场：该数值可作为网络负载的衡量标准，用于动态调整区块上限。与以往设定固定上限不同，现在矿工选择一个区块目标值，基础费会根据区块实际大小相对于该目标的高低而增减。

这种新的手续费市场是向后兼容的，它将 legacy 交易的 gas_price 视为 base_fee_per_gas 与 priority_fee_per_gas 之和。这一细微区别对手续费市场的运行至关重要，因为区块内每单位 gas 的消耗都会影响基础费的计算。该设计的关键在于没有选择机制，legacy 交易和类型 2 交易在新手续费市场中无缝运行，二者的基础费没有区别，且保持这种无差别状态非常重要。

但仅凭这个新机制还不足以平衡用户与矿工的激励关系。关键是要找到一种机制，防止矿工为人为抬高基础费用而故意塞入gas费的交易来膨胀区块。ETH 对此问题的决策还解决了另一个问题。他们认为若将基础费销毁，则无人能从中获益，同时此举还能缓解协议设计中固有的通胀问题。

ETC 通过在哥谭升级中引入ECIP-1017（自2017年12月11日生效）控制代币发行问题，因此该网络不存在销毁手续费的选项。值得探讨的替代方案是延迟支付n个后续矿工的交易手续费。此举既能使矿工获得与原市场统计相当的手续费收益，又可避免激励人为膨胀区块的行为。若矿工为人为膨胀区块而纳入交易，这些交易的手续费将分配给未来矿工而非直接归其所有，从而使其蒙受损失。

该方案曾作为以太坊新手续费市场方案之一被考虑，但因手续费销毁机制能为网络带来经济收益而迅速被取代。建议参阅Tim Roughgarden的论文《以太坊区块链交易手续费机制设计：EIP-1559的经济分析》，作者曾在第8.3节深入剖析该方案的实施影响。

平心而论，即便从技术角度看这似乎很有吸引力，但我并不确定对这一功能的需求究竟有多大。它是否能支撑任何亟待部署的用例？另一方面，基础费这类概念的引入与 EIP-7702 等即将推出的交易类型是契合的，我相信这会为网络带来新的用例。

谨此征询 ETC 社区对在网络中实施上述机制的意见。此类变更绝非小事，它意味着需要经历数月的编程、测试、模拟以及可能的其他实验，才有可能成为现实。（本文基于对EIP-1559机制与ETC协议特性的交叉分析，拒绝AI生成内容，期待理性讨论。）

内容出处：https://github.com/orgs/ethereumclassic/discussions/541

免责声明：本文内容不构成任何投资或财务建议。内容转载自以太坊经典（ETC）Cooperative 技术专家 Diega，仅供行业资讯参考。如有疑问或涉及版权问题，请联系我们进行删除。

Trending Cryptos

ctr
CitreaCTR
wstusdt
wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT
apr
aPrioriAPR
ctx
Cryptex FinanceCTX
audio
AudiusAUDIO
mantra
MantraMANTRA
xvs
VenusXVS
waxl
AxelarWAXL
bill
Billions NetworkBILL
pyth
PYTH (Pyth)PYTH
rune
THORChainRUNE
velodrome
Velodrome FinanceVELODROME
brev
BrevisBREV
zrx
ZRX（0X）ZRX
cake
PancakeSwapCAKE

Related Reads

Bitcoin ETFs add $222M, but BlackRock sees outflows – Why it matters

On July 2nd, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net inflow of $222 million, ending a 10-day outflow streak that totaled $2.709 billion. Fidelity's FBTC led with $166 million in inflows, while BlackRock's typically dominant IBIT recorded $40.4 million in outflows. Despite the fresh inflows, Bitcoin's price, which had fallen below $60k during the outflow period, only rebounded to around $62,713, failing to reclaim the $65k level. Ethereum ETFs followed a similar pattern, with nine days of outflows before turning positive on July 1st and 2nd. In contrast, other altcoin ETFs like those for Solana and XRP saw significant net inflows during the same period. Overall, total assets under management for U.S. crypto ETFs have declined to levels last seen in November 2024.

ambcrypto1m ago

Bitcoin ETFs add $222M, but BlackRock sees outflows – Why it matters

ambcrypto1m ago

How Celestia’s network upgrade triggered TIA’s 102% volume surge

Celestia's network upgrade on July 1st successfully triggered a significant market response. The price of TIA increased by over 10%, and its daily trading volume surged by 102% to $59.5 million. This rally was primarily driven by renewed spot market participation. However, a divergence emerged: while spot buying was strong, futures market data indicated persistent selling pressure and cautious sentiment among derivatives traders. Despite this, bullish leverage remained in place with positive funding rates. Technically, TIA approached a key resistance level at $0.4045, with a potential breakout above it targeting the next resistance at $0.5000. The market structure showed a contrast between optimistic spot activity and skeptical futures positioning.

ambcrypto1h ago

How Celestia’s network upgrade triggered TIA’s 102% volume surge

ambcrypto1h ago

CLARITY Act Countdown: How Will the Crypto Market Fare If It Doesn't Pass Before the August Recess?

The CLARITY Act, a major US crypto market structure bill, faces a tight deadline before the Senate's August 10 recess. It must overcome final hurdles—negotiations on ethics provisions and law enforcement concerns—to secure the 60 votes needed for passage. Analysts warn that missing this window significantly lowers its chances in 2026, with prediction markets giving only a 40% probability of success this year. If the act fails to pass by the recess, the market is expected to react not with a crash but with continued "slow bleeding," particularly in premium products like ETFs. June saw record net outflows from US Bitcoin spot ETFs, partly attributed to this legislative uncertainty. Assets like XRP, which would receive permanent commodity classification under the act, stand to lose a "regulatory premium" on further delays. Bitcoin and Ethereum, already classified as commodities by regulators, face less direct impact, but DeFi innovation and institutional capital inflows would remain stifled by regulatory ambiguity. The path forward includes passing before the recess (a major catalyst), postponement to 2027 (prolonging uncertainty), or failure, requiring the bill to be reintroduced in the next Congress. Despite the stalled negotiations, the bill's advancement this far signals the US is closer than ever to resolving crypto regulatory clarity.

marsbit2h ago

CLARITY Act Countdown: How Will the Crypto Market Fare If It Doesn't Pass Before the August Recess?

marsbit2h ago

The Impact of OUSD on Circle, Tether, and Paxos: Not a Simple Negative, but a More Complex Competitive Landscape

OUSD's Impact on Circle, Tether, and Paxos: A Nuanced Competitive Reshuffle The launch of OUSD, a new stablecoin initiative, has complex implications for the stablecoin market. For Circle (CRCL), the initial 15-20% stock drop reflects legitimate competitive concerns but is not a "death sentence." Circle retains deep liquidity, existing integrations, and first-mover advantages. A potential restructuring or termination of its Coinbase partnership could even double its net revenue in the short term, providing more competitive freedom. However, OUSD, backed by Stripe's engineering and product strengths, could become the default stablecoin within the Stripe ecosystem for new adopters, challenging USDC's position. OUSD does not solve the core barrier for corporate adoption: it remains a credit exposure to its issuer (likely a Bridge-related entity), which, like Circle, is not an investment-grade entity. Large banks and asset managers could still capture the most lucrative enterprise use cases. Circle must accelerate its payment/fintech product development and consider defensive M&A. For Tether, OUSD targets a different market segment. Tether will continue focusing on distribution channels not prioritized by Stripe or Circle. Its market share may decline over time, but within a significantly growing total market. Paxos faces the greatest pressure. OUSD undermines the key selling points of its USDG stablecoin, and Paxos's regulatory advantages may diminish as frameworks mature. This poses a more existential challenge, explaining Paxos's recent shift back to its brokerage-as-a-service business.

marsbit2h ago

The Impact of OUSD on Circle, Tether, and Paxos: Not a Simple Negative, but a More Complex Competitive Landscape

marsbit2h ago

OUSD's Impact on Circle, Tether, and Paxos: Not a Simple Negative, but a More Complex Competitive Reshuffle

This article analyzes the impact of the newly announced stablecoin OUSD, backed by a consortium including Stripe, on major incumbents like Circle (USDC), Tether (USDT), and Paxos (USDG). For Circle, the announcement is not a simple negative. While the initial market reaction was rational, it's not a "death sentence." Circle retains deep liquidity, existing integrations, and first-mover advantage. A potential restructuring or termination of its exclusive revenue-sharing deal with Coinbase could even near-double its net income in the short term, providing more competitive flexibility. However, within the Stripe ecosystem, OUSD, with its strong engineering and product focus, could become the default choice, displacing USDC for new integrations. Circle must accelerate its own fintech product development and consider defensive M&A. OUSD does not directly threaten Tether's core markets, which focus on different distribution channels. Tether's market share may decline over time but within a significantly growing overall market. Paxos faces the greatest pressure. OUSD undermines the primary value proposition of its USDG stablecoin, and Paxos's regulatory advantages may erode as frameworks mature, posing a more existential challenge. This explains Paxos's recent strategic pivot towards brokerage-as-a-service. A fundamental unresolved issue for enterprise adoption remains: if issued by a Bridge-related entity, OUSD, like USDC, still represents a credit exposure to a non-investment-grade issuer, unless a parent company guarantee is provided. Large banks and asset managers entering the space later could still compete for the most lucrative enterprise use cases.

链捕手2h ago

OUSD's Impact on Circle, Tether, and Paxos: Not a Simple Negative, but a More Complex Competitive Reshuffle

链捕手2h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow