Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, GrumpyHodler said:

 

I forgot about custom fees for personal burning. So like I stated how he could burn through fees through multiple transactions, I guess if he was dumb enough he could burn in giant lump sums each day.

You can do both. You can set a custom fee or you can set a max fee you're willing to pay and just pay what the network requests. Ideally with a custom fee you can pay more than the network requests (For a higher priority in the ledger if I understand correctly). Almost any crypto-currency can be burned in a similar manner using custom fees.

[To clarify my initial response about him burning though was more in the comparison of apples to oranges. Person I responded to was wildly hoping Jed would would burn his personal supply just like he did XLM in a futile attempt to raise the price of XRP

To be clear- 

Jed as CTO burned the Stellar foundation's supply. Equal to half the entire supply total. XLM is centralized. XLM will not live on if Stellar goes under.

Jed has never burned any of his holdings of XLM. He never will.

Ripple could in theory burn some of their foundation's reserve, but they never will, and have no reason to. They're maintaining decentralization in all aspects. If Ripple ever does go under, or stops using XRP, it, the ledger, and validators will continue on without Ripple.

Jed through fees can throw away millions of dollars of XRP, but he never will]

If ripple goes under xrp will not live on it! It will crash back to 0.006

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

(1/2) - 22 February 2020 Although never confirmed by Jed McCaleb, the "tacostand" XRP wallet (rEhKZcz5Ndjm9BzZmmKrtvhXPnSWByssDv) is well-known to belong to him. A quick look at the wallet a

Since there seems to be some slight confusion about it in this thread, I'd like to clarify some bits about transaction costs burned. First, Stellar's fees work differently from the XRP Ledger's t

These massive holdings - Chris Larsen's and a few others' as well - cloud the whole XRP and Ripple space somewhat.And of other tokens as well. That's the nature of crypto and founders. To them it does

Posted Images

11 hours ago, Tinyaccount said:

I can’t recall for sure but I thought the fee burn is not under the transactions control?  That you can specify a max fee but not the fee that will be paid?   ( Buying and holding hasn’t taught me much about actual transaction crafting...   :) )

There was actually a max fee implemented or something alike because someone put like 100 000 xrp as a fee by accident in his code (not sure if it was 100k or 1mil, ... but it was a big number).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there seems to be some slight confusion about it in this thread, I'd like to clarify some bits about transaction costs burned.

First, Stellar's fees work differently from the XRP Ledger's transaction costs. A couple years back Stellar implemented an "auction" system so that the XLM actually destroyed when transactions are processed is up to the amount those transactions specify. This saves people money but means you can't intentionally destroy XLM by setting a large fee. Because of this, when the Stellar Foundation burned their large amount of XLM, they did it by blackholing. The XRP Ledger, at a protocol level, always uses a fixed cost mechanism: every transaction destroys exactly the amount of XRP written into the signed transaction instructions ("Fee" field), or the network rejects it¹. If you explicitly specify a transaction cost, you can be assured that if the transaction gets shared to the network, it will destroy that exact amount of XRP.

¹ The only exception to the rule that a transaction pays its exact cost is for a specific edge case. It's theoretically a transaction gets distributed throughout the network and achieves majority support in consensus because the sender had enough XRP to pay the cost at the time, but due to other transactions being in flux, the sender ends up with less XRP than the transaction's cost at the time the transaction would be executed. In this specific case, the transaction fails but is included in the ledger with the code tecINSUFF_FEE, and instead of destroying the full transaction cost amount it destroys as much as it can (resulting in the sender having a balance of precisely 0 XRP).

However, many transaction-signing utilities, including ripple-lib, allow you to omit the "Fee" field. In this case, the transaction signing utility chooses a "Fee" value for you and writes it into the transaction instructions before signing them. Typically this means the utility asks an XRP Ledger server what cost it needs to send the transaction right away. There are ways this can go wrong—if the cost to get a transaction is temporarily elevated due to a passing spike in activity on the specific XRP Ledger server you asked, you can end up destroying much, much more XRP than is reasonable. Of course, it's also possible to "fat-finger" and put more zeroes than you meant when specifying the transaction cost explicitly.

Both rippled and ripple-lib have precautions against specifying too high a fee. However, ripple-lib did not enforce maximum transaction cost by default until version 1.0.0 added a new global setting "maxFeeXRP". With the new global maximum, ripple-lib flat-out refuses to sign a transaction if the transaction cost is too high. (You can get around it by explicitly specifying a bigger maxFeeXRP setting when you instantiate the API.) I believe that is the "max fee" that @SquaryBone is referring to:

15 hours ago, SquaryBone said:

There was actually a max fee implemented or something alike because someone put like 100 000 xrp as a fee by accident in his code (not sure if it was 100k or 1mil, ... but it was a big number).

However, there are still ways to sign a valid transaction with as big of a "Fee" value as you want. If you have that much XRP and you submit that transaction to the network, you can burn precisely as much of your XRP as you want.

This last bit is a personal note: I don't recommend burning XRP.

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

However, there are still ways to sign a valid transaction with as big of a "Fee" value as you want. If you have that much XRP and you submit that transaction to the network, you can burn precisely as much of your XRP as you want.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I really thought this was something in the XRP ledger itself but apparently I'm wrong :) 

Why do you not recommend to burn XRP (of course apart from the obvious that you loose your xrp :) )

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

Thanks for pointing that out. I really thought this was something in the XRP ledger itself but apparently I'm wrong :) 

Why do you not recommend to burn XRP (of course apart from the obvious that you loose your xrp :) )

I rather suspect for the same reason I recommend not taking bank notes from your pocket and burning them! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, XRP-JAG said:

I rather suspect for the same reason I recommend not taking bank notes from your pocket and burning them! :lol:

I just came up with an app idea: the XRP shooter. You put in the amount and XRP is sent to random addresses (a bit like a cash cannon). Would be perfect for someone who wants to brag he has too much money :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SquaryBone said:

I just came up with an app idea: the XRP shooter. You put in the amount and XRP is sent to random addresses (a bit like a cash cannon). Would be perfect for someone who wants to brag he has too much money :p

Even better, send the XRP to addresses that are selected at random from a carefully cultivated list, so the money goes to useful purposes instead of just being tossed into the void.

What's that? The list only has one address? Don't worry, that's a security feature. I can personally assure you that I trust everyone on that list 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mDuo13 said:

Even better, send the XRP to addresses that are selected at random from a carefully cultivated list, so the money goes to useful purposes instead of just being tossed into the void.

What's that? The list only has one address? Don't worry, that's a security feature. I can personally assure you that I trust everyone on that list 100%.

Now... If we code up a "Distributed Ledger Lottery," publish the codebase on GitHub, and post all entrants on the public ledger...

The script launches at the encoded time, and auto-awards the payouts straight to the winners. All run on the network, not under control of anyone.

Just like Ripple Labs' billions of zerps on escrow. Just a little more complex.

I have previously suggested using smart contracts and "jury voting" to help run publicly viewable prop-bets for crazy poker players.
There are so many fun things we'll be using this new tech.

What a time to be alive !!
rotfl

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

Even better, send the XRP to addresses that are selected at random from a carefully cultivated list, so the money goes to useful purposes instead of just being tossed into the void.

What's that? The list only has one address? Don't worry, that's a security feature. I can personally assure you that I trust everyone on that list 100%.

Not really. That defeats the purpose of wasting money when you're rich :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

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.