Jump to content

Why XRP will NOT succeed


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You are so clueless.

Hi. Many people like to predict 5 dollar XRP or even 10 dollar XRP. But this people will NEVER tell you the truth.  It cost you 20 XRP to create an account and back in 2015 2016 2017 it costed betwe

Kind Sir, please send @MemberBerry a private message in the future instead of opening a thread, so we don't have to deal with this nonsense.

17 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

do you guys think should lower the reserve ? considering the 20 reserve was set when the price is 0.004, and now the price is 0.4,  so I think lower the reserve is a valid request 

No it shouldn’t be lowered.  The account object weighs too much to have billions of them.  

There was discussion of raising it a while ago.  I think that died down when the deletion option started to be considered.  

There is no need to lower it at this stage or even at ten times the price.  Later on it may need to be lowered but not in the foreseeable future.  

Besides...  all those greedy validators want to keep sucking up all the noobs XRP s.   :)    [/sarcasm]

 

#isAntonanidiotoratroll?

 

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

No it shouldn’t be lowered.  The account object weighs too much to have billions of them.  

There was discussion of raising it a while ago.  I think that died down when the deletion option started to be considered.  

There is no need to lower it at this stage or even at ten times the price.  Later on it may need to be lowered but not in the foreseeable future.  

Besides...  all those greedy validators want to keep sucking up all the noobs XRP s.   :)    [/sarcasm]

 

#isAntonanidiotoratroll?

 

the "deleteaccount " is under test, and will be enabled this year or next year,   by then the account object will not be a problem 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

do you guys think should lower the reserve ? considering the 20 reserve was set when the price is 0.004, and now the price is 0.4,  so I think lower the reserve is a valid request 

I'm actually thinking the reserve should be raised to 43..... I will start a new thread asking what everyone thinks....

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Anton said:

Please answer instead of being a troll. 
When someone tells the truth.. the XRP army will attack him, why? 

Just answer.. or move along

It's not about him being a troll... actually you're the troll in this situation because you have no idea what you're talking about. The minimum limit has been constantly lowered with the increase in price. And it will happen in the future. It's a measure to prevent spam on the network. Please, stop being stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Tinyaccount said:

No it shouldn’t be lowered.  The account object weighs too much to have bShow Replyillions of them.

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 :hi:

Edited by Rabbit_Kick_Club
I just editited this post like eight times!
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rabbit_Kick_Club said:

The object will still be an issue for full history nodes.

not for most nodes/validators 

data expand is one issue for all the blockchains full node, not only XRP, can't use this for a reason to deny new user's enter.

Edited by yxxyun
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

data expand is one issue for all the blockchains full node, not only XRP, can't use this for a reason to deny new user's enter.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rabbit_Kick_Club said:

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.

The other account based blockchain/DLT ‘s reserve:

stellar: 1XLM

EOS: ~0.2EOS

ETH: ~0.0006ETH

apparently XRP now is the most expensive

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

The other account based blockchain/DLT ‘s reserve:

stellar: 1XLM

EOS: ~0.2EOS

ETH: ~0.0006ETH

apparently XRP now is the most expensive 

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.

Edited by Rabbit_Kick_Club
Encourage people to complain to Polo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rabbit_Kick_Club said:

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).

use the full node reason to deny this request is unacceptable.

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...

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.