Jump to content
pftq

Lowering XRP Min Balance

Recommended Posts

tell me 'bout it..been waiting forever for this lowering...

It's weird that they haven't..maybe there's waiting for the price to stabilize a bit. So I guess for us hodlers it's good news..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is they'd love to lower it but currently, there are implementation issues by some (i.e. Polo) that are causing scaling issues for validators.  We're in a similar boat with our development.

Edited by Coinseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum funding per account is still the same: 20 XRP (far too low imho).

I personally would use the testnet for now and then either create a private fork or run an Interledger connector for user facing services. I doubt that once the ledger is decentralized it is in anyone's interest to lower the reserve amounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sukrim said:

The minimum funding per account is still the same: 20 XRP (far too low imho).

I personally would use the testnet for now and then either create a private fork or run an Interledger connector for user facing services. I doubt that once the ledger is decentralized it is in anyone's interest to lower the reserve amounts.

It's in the interest of anyone that wants to build peer-to-peer solutions that aren't on a hosted implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Validators need to store all active accounts (>20XRP) in RAM to enable consensus to happen quickly. with 1M+ accounts now it takes 4-6GB ram to store them in memory. It's not a problem for most machines, but if on ledger XRP accounts scale to 10's of millions or billions it will become a problem. I'm not technical, but there may be ways to put accounts into dormancy, or close them(easier said than done). Actively encouraging gateways to use Destination tags helps. I could even forsee a scenario where I could sell an obsolete account to someone so they don't have to pay the activation fee. The account could be re-keyed and re-used.

2nd layer solution has been mentioned. https://gyazo.com/714a258bec10987c3209115b65337cf1 It would certainly be nice to know what the long term plans are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Coinseeker said:

It's in the interest of anyone that wants to build peer-to-peer solutions that aren't on a hosted implementation.

So how are these people going to be able to run a trusted validation node? We'll see once Ripple Inc. announces the first third party validators what direction XRPL will take... "bankchain" or "P2P exchange  for the people".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sukrim said:

So how are these people going to be able to run a trusted validation node? We'll see once Ripple Inc. announces the first third party validators what direction XRPL will take... "bankchain" or "P2P exchange  for the people".

I have some general ideas about how nodes could be run but I certainly don't have all the answers.  Hell...most times I look to you for the answers.  B) 

As long as it's been resisted and for some valid reasons, paying validators may be the simplest answer.  IDK.  What I do know is the issue is valid on both sides and I choose to not accept that it has to be a zero sum game.  With that...I acknowledge that my optimism may be naive at this stage of the game.  

Edited by Coinseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mDuo13 I don't know much about it, but I've heard that you can combine accounts on Stellar, and I believe in general it's possible to combine multiple key pairs in to one. Is that someone that could have the desired effect of reducing the load on the validators? Say if combining three accounts this way to one, would that effectively remove two accounts from the burden? Also, another thought is that if accounts can be rekeyed, then it should be possible to transfer them to other people, if it ever came to something that drastic- but I suspect you guys have other plans for significant scaling solutions that don't involve these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mDuo13 said:

The discussion within Ripple has been inconclusive so far...

I know this issue may not ultimately have a "utopian" outcome but I appreciate Team Ripple, pftq, Sukrim and several others who are bringing the issue to light and forcing the conversation.  I look forward to seeing how this shakes out.  

Edited by Coinseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mDuo13 

I think as the price rises new investors will be more likely to think twice about purchasing 20 or more XRPs to create a wallet.  If it gets to 5 dollars you are looking at 100 dollar entry.  It appears you guys have gone through all the ramifications of lowering minimum from what you typed above.

On another subject.....Another sticking point for new investors.......

Toast Wallet is working to change their XRP wallet to allow purchasing of XRP offline from the wallet.  Which sounds much better than hassling with Coinbase and doing

transfers of ETH to another exchange to buy XRPs.  Maybe you guys can help speed the wallet method of buying XRPs along rather than waiting for Coinbase to add XRP.

https://twitter.com/toastwallet?lang=en

 

Edited by Coinzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mDuo13 said:

 

  • XRP-only multi-signing "sub-accounts" that are tied to destination tags. The sub-account would have its own balance of XRP but would send transactions using the sequence number of the parent account.
  • New "deletable" flag on accounts (on by default for new accounts). Transactions from these accounts must specify a LastLedgerSequence within a certain range of the current ledger.
    • You still would only be able to delete an account if it owned no ledger objects.
  • "Light" accounts that can send and receive XRP but can't own objects in the ledger and can only send and receive "Payment" type transactions.  Light accounts have special Sequence numbers that start out equal to the current ledger index when the account gets created and can't go over a certain amount (always less than the current ledger index). So the account would take a while (say, 100 ledgers) to "mature" enough to send transactions and then it can't average more than 1 transaction per ledger version. If it ever runs out of XRP, it'd get deleted.
    • The sequence number thing gets around the transaction replay problem because if an account ever gets re-created, its new starting Sequence number will definitely be higher than any previous transaction it could've sent successfully.
    • Since they can't own anything in the ledger, the total space a "Light" account would occupy is less than what an offer occupies, so they're definitely less bad than offers (which already exist) in terms of letting people temporarily clog the ledger and then get their XRP back.

 

It's cool to be part of a coin that can change this radically without being part of a nasty fight or fork.

I like sub-accounts/deletable flag because they sound the easiest to implement, and a dirty short-term fix is what's needed until a more elegant solution can be made with ILP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mDuo13 said:

Since they can't own anything in the ledger, the total space a "Light" account would occupy is less than what an offer occupies

One of the issues are InnerNodes that need to be recomputed for every transaction etc. Changing a Leaf node such as a "light" Account would still need quite a bit of overhead (just like offers). Thanks for the update though, it would be great if these discussions happend more out in the open, after all soon you will also need to convince other validators to enable such amendments.

4 hours ago, Coinzee said:

 If it gets to 5 dollars you are looking at 100 dollar entry

And if it gets back to 10 cents, you're looking at 2 Dollars.

4 hours ago, Coinzee said:

Maybe you guys can help speed the wallet method of buying XRPs along

Ripple Inc. doesn't do business with consumers directly.

3 hours ago, flanman said:

a dirty short-term fix is what's needed until a more elegant solution can be made with ILP.

I disagree, any short dirty fix will stay around forever and ILP doesn't really help anyways with XRPL issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the Polo-thing that has been mentioned? Something Poloniex?

Has some sort of approach been considered where the transaction fees are increased? One could think of an approach where the transaction fees go up if the number of transactions is high and the transaction volume (amount of XRP transferred) is low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...