Jump to content
JoelKatz

Suggestion: Deletable Accounts

Recommended Posts

For code simplicity and reducing the risk of severe harm to the XRP ledger, in case the audit does miss something, I strongly suggest the account has to do a full cleanup. If the intention is to delete an account, the owner typically wants to recover locked XRP above the minimum account reserve anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public spec defines a transaction that the account owner sends, which tracks down everything tied to the account that can or can't be deleted, and does that if possible. I think that's a great approach. (Actually, the spec itself is just fantastic work. Thanks especially to Scott Schurr for putting a ton of research effort into the thing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, RareData said:

For code simplicity and reducing the risk of severe harm to the XRP ledger, in case the audit does miss something, I strongly suggest the account has to do a full cleanup. If the intention is to delete an account, the owner typically wants to recover locked XRP above the minimum account reserve anyway.

It would be trivial to DoS someone then by opening an Escrow of 1 drop until the year 9000 towards the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoelKatz said:

The 20 XRP reserve requirement has proved to be a bit of an obstacle to some use cases for the ledger. This proposal would provide a path to delete existing accounts, recovering all but one incremental reserve (currently 5 XRP). This would also allow owners of unwanted accounts to clean them up and recover approximately 15 XRP in the process.

 

I really like this idea (in principle) and I'm amazed at the amount of deep 'scenario' thinking that @nikb has put into it here: https://github.com/xrp-community/standards-drafts/issues/8

If it's safe and well-planned, then I support this amendment.  But if it puts the ledger at any degree of significant risk, I'd probably opt to pass on it.  :JC_thinking:

 

Share this post


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

It would be trivial to DoS someone then by opening an Escrow of 1 drop until the year 9000 towards the victim.

Yes, there are "creative" ways to prevent an account from being deleted—at a cost. It's an unfortunate reality. There are potential workarounds, but it's a cat-and-mouse game which, ultimately, affects usability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 8:57 AM, Hodor said:

 

I really like this idea (in principle) and I'm amazed at the amount of deep 'scenario' thinking that @nikb has put into it here: https://github.com/xrp-community/standards-drafts/issues/8

I appreciate the kind words, but most of the "deep 'scenario' thinking" is by my coworker, Scott Schurr.

Share this post


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

It would be trivial to DoS someone then by opening an Escrow of 1 drop until the year 9000 towards the victim.

I was mostly referring to objects placed by the account under deletion. Performing the DoS you described would cost an attacker >= 5 XRP + 1 drop per account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this hold a bit more risk of bloating the ledger? Easy delete invites to easy create....
As even after being deleted... the account forever will stay in the ledger.
Not? 

Edited by kanaas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RareData said:

I was mostly referring to objects placed by the account under deletion. Performing the DoS you described would cost an attacker >= 5 XRP + 1 drop per account.

Ripple sells a multiple of the XRP amounts necessary too block every existing account so far every single month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume "delete" means "balance of 0". What is the problem that needs to be solved here? Your suggestion of deletable account sounds more like a concrete solution for a specific problem to me. I don't know exactly the problem that needs to be solved. Could you elaborate the problem please? I aim to keep all participants to speak of the same problem.

If I assume the problem is the locked 20 XRP, I don't see any need for a change for the ledger. As a solution for that problem, I think we should discuss possibilities to reduce that fee. Why don't the validators just vote and change for a reduction to 5 XRP for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jerrybo said:

I assume "delete" means "balance of 0". What is the problem that needs to be solved here? Your suggestion of deletable account sounds more like a concrete solution for a specific problem to me. I don't know exactly the problem that needs to be solved. Could you elaborate the problem please? I aim to keep all participants to speak of the same problem.

If I assume the problem is the locked 20 XRP, I don't see any need for a change for the ledger. As a solution for that problem, I think we should discuss possibilities to reduce that fee. Why don't the validators just vote and change for a reduction to 5 XRP for example?

delete not just means balance of 0, it can reduce the memory usage, node don't need to load deleted accounts state to memory. 

Edited by yxxyun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the real challenge is how to keep the reserve high enough to make account creation for the purposes of spam at bay, but yet with a reserve realistic for use all over the world.

At ATH prices, talking $80 USD in reserve, which is some money. If you talking about serving the unbanked in Ghana... that’s roughly 6 months salary - ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XRP-JAG said:

I suspect the real challenge is how to keep the reserve high enough to make account creation for the purposes of spam at bay, but yet with a reserve realistic for use all over the world.

At ATH prices, talking $80 USD in reserve, which is some money. If you talking about serving the unbanked in Ghana... that’s roughly 6 months salary - ouch.

I’ve always thought that the end game situation would probably not be individual wallets except in less usual circumstances.

That ultimately,  institutional storage in a pooled wallet would be the most common way that people store their XRP.  So Reserve is not applicable.  I mean, after all,  that’s what we do with our Fiat funds.

Of course that leaves a gap for the unbanked that will need to be resolved.  I suspect inexpensive providers using apps on phones doing the XRP equivalent of Internet Banking will be the solution there.  
 

In a way it depends largely on whether Moore’s Law is truly broken down for the future.  Heavy on-chain objects are not so much of a problem if the hardware is advanced enough.

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...