# Transaction Filter \*FEE\* must stay::Boundary conditions, use case, class coin **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [July 10, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/t/transaction-filter-fee-must-stay-boundary-conditions-use-case-class-coin/3571 "2015-07-10T06:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 21

**Author:** ![Gin](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@Gin](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/u/Gin)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/t/transaction-filter-fee-must-stay-boundary-conditions-use-case-class-coin/3571/21 "2015-07-12T15:41:38Z")

[quote=“Nagalim, post:18, topic:3571”]We have a solution, don’t we? Adjust the fee dynamically based on a target number of transactions per block? I mentioned SK here, but it was actually JL that put together the fee poll and the earliest reference to it I can find is here: > [@Fixed Transaction Fee (0.01 PPC/kb) Debate Thread](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/t/fixed-transaction-fee-0-01-ppc-kb-debate-thread/1068/39): > > - transaction-volume-adjusted fee: The goal would be to protect the network from being overloaded with transactions. After a short transaction-volume spike the fee would increase. This could even have effects on a better stability, as it would discourage a massive sell-off from PPC wallets (price crashes and spikes are accompanied often by dramatic volume spikes).[/quote] If this was true > [@Poll: What should be done with the fixed transaction fee of 0.01 PPC/kB](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/t/poll-what-should-be-done-with-the-fixed-transaction-fee-of-0-01-ppc-kb/1103/33): > > I thought an output below 0.01 PPC already couldn’t exist? Haven’t we basically already done the dustspamfix from the get-go? What would be the problem then? --- _[View the full topic](https://discourse.peercoin-library.org/t/transaction-filter-fee-must-stay-boundary-conditions-use-case-class-coin/3571)._