Jump to content

DutchBeetle

Member
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DutchBeetle

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My suggestion was that the ledger priority selects the top 1500 fee-paying transactions per second (as it does now if I'm correct) but then only charges the amount which is minimally required to be part of this 'top 1500 per second'. If there are let's say 2000 transaction-requests in this second, the cut off for this ledger will be at the fee willing to be paid by the 500th lowest request. The ledger will then automatically charge the top 1500 out of the 2000 for this amount, but nothing above.. although the requests above this level were willing to pay a higher fee to get in this very ledger. 1. People who are willing to wait just put in the minimum required and will be processed when there is space in following ledgers 2. The problem with default maximum fees isn't solved, but neither is it nowadays I would argue. It at least lowers the cost of these types of 'mistakes' and it will definitely lower the cost of absurd priority fees 3. The ledger will still be protected from DoS-type-attacks because overfilling the ledger will still become more and more costly. Being in the top-1500 per second will still be progressively more expensive in this case.
  2. I don't think this post is super, Nelson. how is this more than BoA upgrading to instant payments and everybody guessing it's ripplenet? (do not point xrpripplenews as very trustworthy), actual sources in which BoA states this uses RippleNet.
  3. I'd say nowadays it is more or less a wild guess how high the fee must be set for users who definitely want to have their transaction processed ASAP. This alteration would ensure this fast processing but makes 'overpaying' a thing of the past.
  4. Automatically deposit the 'overpaid' fees back to the sender, I can hardly imagine a situation in which this will be conflicting with the actual purpose of the transaction. Seriously, TPS throughput is increased to 5250?.. Wow, nice! (in this case, insert 5250 where is states 1500)
  5. As far as I know the transaction fees serve a goal to defend the limitations of the XRPL against spammers. Each ledger chooses the (currently maximum 1500) transactions favoring the transactions which pay the highest fee (high-value to low-value). Therefore a coordinated spam-attack will become very expensive very soon because of the (fast increasing) progressive fees needed to prevent 'normal' transactions a place in the next ledger. And this every 3 to 5 seconds. Now, if a 'normal' transaction definitely wants a place in the next ledger, the sender has the possibility to agree a higher fee (for example .0001 XRP as @JoelKatz stated). I am wondering if there is a possibility that this higher fee is more or less 'optional' and is only used in cases where the ledger really is that full with transactions that it is needed? Wouldn't it be great that the ledger is smart enough to recognize whether this 'higher than minimum fee' is actually needed? And when this fee is excessive an unnecessary the ledger chooses to only 'take out' the necessary minimum? In that case, if one definitely wants to make a transaction he/she puts in .0001 XRP as a fee, but when the network doesn't use its full occupancy rate, only .00001 XRP is actually used in this transaction. In the case of a spam-attack, this higher fee is actually needed due to the higher throughput and therefore this higher fee is completely used (or as far is minimally needed for the transaction to take place in this ledger). An additional advantage will be that these 'fat-finger' faults are very much less harmful. Sometimes you see a transaction which sends .00001 XRP and pays 100XRP in fees, this obviously should have been the other way around. With my proposed alteration this will (normally) result in a transaction of .00001 XRP, costing .00001 XRP also. Effectively, the ledger still picks the 1500 highest fee-paying transactions, and downgrades the fees needed for these transactions to 'just' be the top 1500. This might be impossible (because I'm no programmer and have very little technical background) but it would be more user-friendly without losing the defense characteristics. I would love to hear opinions on this, perhaps even from Ripple employees as @JoelKatz @mDuo13 @warpaul @nikb !
  6. Who says we don't accept reality? I accepted reality when in Nov 2017 it was at 20 cents, when in Jan 2018 it was at 3.80 dollars, when now it is down 90%... come to think about it.. can one actually not accept reality? That would seem so.. unreal.. don't you think?
  7. Ik zou er graag bij zijn geweest, helaas zit ik dan al op Lowlands
  8. I referred to the last sentence in the first post where retep asked "if there would be enough money to let everybody cash out at 100 dollar".. This question was not really on track and therefore I explained one of the basics regarding supply and demand. I'm well aware of the fact that retail investors won't significantly change market prices individually..
  9. I really advice you to take some basic classes in supply and demand (no offense, just try to help) When you cash out, somebody has to be willing to buy this asset. If XRP hits let's say 100 dollars. Then total market cap would be around 10 trillion dollars, this does not mean that every owner of XRP could cash out at that instance (for 100 dollars). If everybody wants to cash out, the supply would be extremely high, whereas only a small portion of demand would want to pay this 100
  10. Question, do you know basic economics? Not everybody can cash out at 100, who would be the buyer then?
  11. Care to explain. I don't get your point sorry Emi tweeted that she was in Hong Kong yesterday.. The announcement of Ant Financial (Alipay) and Standard Chartered was in Hong Kong yesterday also.. We more or less hoped these two were connected.. Her next tweet was the one shown above, so no connection... yet..
×
×
  • Create New...