Jump to content
Anton

Why XRP will NOT succeed

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

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

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 :P

Share this post


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

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 :P

No, single validator can't reach consensus, even all the validators in the default UNL can't reach consensus if they set different value.

Share this post


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

No, single validator can't reach consensus, even all the validators in the default UNL can't reach consensus if they set different value. 

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.

6 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

even all the validators in the default UNL can't reach consensus if they set different value. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Rabbit_Kick_Club said:

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

the checks amendments  is a good example, most the validators are vote it by default, even the validators in default UNL, but ripple's validator are not, so it's not enabled over one year now. it is  not a democratic network, it is like CPC's ruling in China.

Edited by yxxyun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

he checks amendments  is a good example, most the validators are vote it by default, even the validators in default UNL, but ripple's validator are not, so it's not enabled over one year now. it is  not a democratic network

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.

Edited by Rabbit_Kick_Club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Rabbit_Kick_Club said:

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 amendment 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.

Your voting will not pass until ripple allow it.  it isn't democratic

Edited by yxxyun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rabbit_Kick_Club said:

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?

No, I stop trust ripple's validators, but I still trust the other validators who still trust ripple's, so I trust ripple's validators indirectly. If I kick out all these validators out, I just simply fork away.

Share this post


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

No, I stop trust ripple's validators, but I still trust the other validators who still trust ripple's, so I trust ripple's validators indirectly. If I kick out all these validators out, I just simply fork away. 

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?

Share this post


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

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?

Ripple‘s exist in default UNL destroy the democracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, yxxyun said:

Ripple‘s exist in default UNL destroy the democracy 

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. :spinlol:

Edited by Rabbit_Kick_Club

Share this post


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

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. :spinlol:

Under ideal situation ,it is true, BUT in reality,it won't happen until ripple quit by itself

Share this post


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

Under ideal situation ,it is true, BUT in reality,it won't happen until ripple quit by itself 

I guess that's how democracy works - everyone is free to choose who to trust, follow, etc.

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...