Jump to content

ScottBranson

Member
  • Content Count

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About ScottBranson

  • Rank
    Regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://jscottbranson.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    XRP Ledger Infrastructure
  • Location
    Michigan
  • 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 thef
  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 veto
  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
  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
  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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.