Jump to content

Rabbit_Kick_Club

Member
  • Content Count

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Rabbit_Kick_Club

  • Rank
    Regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://rabbitkick.club

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Chatting about XRP
  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. While I am very sorry for people's losses, I adamantly oppose using our validator to censor or alter any transactions, as doing so would surely have substantial negative effects for the overall XRPL. As @alloyxrp already observed, this is a slippery slope indeed! Further, it isn't even possible or practical, as there are so many default UNL validators that would surely disagree with this course of action. Irreversible theft is a consequence associated with decentralized systems, and I personally avoid keeping any value on exchanges, as I see them as rather large targets for theft.
  2. How is that not democracy? In a democracy people are free to defend or support other's decisions. It seems like you think a democracy involves people doing what you think they should do, instead of letting them choose for themselves. Anyhow, this conversation seems fairly pointless to me. I told you my opinion on the wallet reserve and enabling amendments. You haven't presented a single compelling reason for me to change my views, you just keep complaining that people aren't doing what you want On that note, I'm off to bed. Nighty night.
  3. I guess that's how democracy works - everyone is free to choose who to trust, follow, etc.
  4. Then just fork the rippled Git repo and make your own UNL. If enough people don't like what Ripple is doing, surely they will follow. Again, this is democracy.
  5. It sounds like you want to have things exactly how you want them, which isn't democracy. Perhaps what you don't like about the Ledger is that it is democratic?
  6. If people don't like how Ripple's validators' vote, then they could choose to stop trusting those validators entirely. How is that not democratic?
  7. I'm not sure how you define democratic, but in my view the Ledger is a democratic network. In your response you say that most of the validators are voting for the Checks amendment. If it isn't democratic, why are they voting? Amendments have serious implications for the network, which could have irreversible consequences. Thus, I believe they require thorough testing prior to implementation. This view is arguably reflected in the fact that amendments require 80% support from the voting quorum to pass. For this reason, our validator, which is included in the default UNL, is currently vetoing the checks amendment. I plan to change this to vote in favor of the Checks and FlowCross amendments in the relatively near future, as they have been fairly well tested without issues on the TestNet. There are other default UNL validators that are not run by Ripple that are actively vetoing these two amendments, possibly for the same reason. As a default UNL validator operator, I see it as imperative that I act slowly and intentionally with things like amendments and fees, so I can do my absolute best to be a good steward. It is easy to talk about making changes, but my aim is to prevent unforeseen consequences.
  8. If you were the only validator voting to lower the fee, then perhaps there is a reason the other validators disagree with you, like the reasons I stated. You haven't given me any compelling reason why fees should be lowered, so I see no reason to change my vote based on this discourse. This isn't true. All the validators could set different values, which would result in a compromise. More info on how voting works here: https://developers.ripple.com/fee-voting.html
  9. I think it is perfectly acceptable, as the wallet reserve is explicitly designed to prevent spam. Creating wallets is particularly onerous for full history nodes, and it is expensive to run a full history node. If you don't like it, you are welcome to spin up a validator, gain trust and reputation, and vote to lower the fee. It is a democratic network, after all
  10. I don't see this as a relevant comparison, as these assets are all distinctly different with regard to history size, average tx/ledger, etc. ETH miners are incentivized, so spam is arguably less relevant to them. Different cryptos/tokens/assets have different use cases, which result in different fee structures, etc. I totally understand the frustration with the wallet reserve, and, like I said, I think there is great value in making XRP accessible while also balancing the overall ledger size. For people who can't afford the wallet reserve, I hope they will still use apps that allow them to transact using XRP, like the XRP Tip Bot (which is a terrific solution to this issue, IMO). Anyone who doesn't like the wallet reserve should encourage exchanges, like Poloniex, to stop creating a wallet for every user, and instead use destination tags. This eliminates the need for exchange users to have a wallet reserve, while also reducing the Ledger's overall size.
  11. On the other hand, I don't think it makes sense to assume that an amendment to delete accounts that may or may not even be coded will exist. There is a balance between making XRP accessible to people and ensuring the ledger size stays manageable. We also need full history nodes, and they will have to store everything associated with deleted accounts.
  12. The object will still be an issue for full history nodes.
  13. Ms. Rabbit and I very much agree. When considering what the account reserve should be, please keep in mind that people who run rippled nodes are essentially donating storage space (9+TB for a full history node) as well as bandwidth (one of our nodes used >1.3TB in bandwidth just yesterday) and memory. You may have 20 XRP (~$10) in reserve, but that account lives on the ledger for ever, and nodes have to pay to store it indefinitely (at least until an amendment allowing accounts to be deleted passed). Even if the account can be deleted, full history nodes still have to store the account's history. Further, exchanges like Poloniex needlessly create new accounts for each user, instead of using destination tags. This causes a tremendous amount of needless pollution. The wallet reserve is designed to prevent spam (i.e., people creating more accounts than they need), and, last I checked, Polo is still needlessly spamming the ledger. If anything, this suggests the reserve is too low. For these reasons, we have no intention to change our vote regarding the reserve at this time. @Tinyaccount is right, though, us greedy validators love sucking XRP from noobs
  14. Session 1 works for me. Thanks for organizing this!
  15. I wonder about keeping it as simple as possible, then - use Zoom for live video calls, then post the recordings to YouTube. Links to videos and Q&A can then happen in XRPChat. The main benefit of Moodle would be having a permanent course shell where you can organize information easily in sequence in one place (e.g., if you are planning to upload information in multiple formats- zoom videos, word documents/pdfs, readings, glossary of key terms, quizzes, surveys, live chat, etc.) However, this may not be needed.
×
×
  • Create New...