Jump to content
pftq

Lowering XRP Min Balance

Recommended Posts

I would include the 10% most recently used accounts(which probably account for 90% of all transactions), and then sub-divide the rest of the accounts based on the last digit(s). I keep all the 1-4's you keep all the 5-7's etc. Any transaction that includes an account that isn't found, isn't voted on. I don't know if the consensus mechanism would even allow 'abstain' votes. 

 

 

Share this post


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

You're describing sharding essentially. 

So in researching "sharding" seems you're 100% right.  This is exactly the type of thinking I had.  What I find really interesting is that Ethereum comes up in many searches as it seems, sharding is the direction they believe will allow them to scale.  Not saying this should happen just because Ethereum thinks it will work...but...I don't believe in discounting such a collection of brain matter either.

I'm still researching this concept but one interesting thought I found stated:

Quote

Light client: a way of interacting with a blockchain that only requires a very small amount (we’ll say O(1), though O(log(c)) may also be accurate in some cases) of computational resources, keeping track of only the block headers of the chain by default and acquiring any needed information about transactions, state or receipts by asking for and verifying Merkle proofs of the relevant data on an as-needed basis.

Something in this vein sounds most logical to me.

Edited by Coinseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light clients are already described in Satoshi's original paper...

Sharding is a standard practice to scale out instead of scaling up. I honestly don't see the need for it at the moment and XRPL's state data is far more interconnected than maybe even Ethereum (though their smart contract stuff makes it also quite hard to draw good boundaries and gives them other challenges).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sukrim said:

Light clients are already described in Satoshi's original paper...

Sharding is a standard practice to scale out instead of scaling up. I honestly don't see the need for it at the moment and XRPL's state data is far more interconnected than maybe even Ethereum (though their smart contract stuff makes it also quite hard to draw good boundaries and gives them other challenges).

The fact that we're all having this convo exposes the "need".  I'd rather have the right solution for long term scalability....rather than a quick fix that either destroys the usefulness of the network and/or forces us back into this dialog 5 years from now.

 

Share this post


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

The fact that we're all having this convo exposes the "need". 

Ripple wants only FIs to run validators. So I'd think they can handle upgrading hardware, even if the wallet count crosses millions upwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Graine said:

Ripple wants only FIs to run validators. So I'd think they can handle upgrading hardware, even if the wallet count crosses millions upwards. 

If they don't move (expand) from that position...that's when forks start looking like far more attractive options.  Again, no need for this to be a zero sum game. 

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...