Jump to content

Ripple CTO David Schwartz Also Believes 98% of XRP Transactions are Empty


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not sure I completely agree with that. You might just as well get rid of the DEX and instead run a smart contract in an ILP connector. You could run the entire forex market globally as a single exchan

I don't see a problem with it either, other than transaction bloat of the XRPL, as long as higher value transactions in terms of payments and fees have precedence over lower ones. Not advice or anythi

Typical crypto journalism at its finest. The research data is based on XRPL transactions between Oct-Dec 2019, when the XRPL was under a spam attack and the overwhelming majority of transactions

Quote

To reduce the number of worthless transactions, David Schwartz said some observers have argued that transaction fees on the XRP Ledger should be raised from 0.0001XRP to something higher.

“Some have argued we should raise the minimum txn fee from 0.00001 XRP to something much more significant to reduce txn spam.”

I wonder how (true) micro payments fit in this perspective? 

  

2 minutes ago, Flintstone said:

The research data is based on XRPL transactions between Oct-Dec 2019, when the XRPL was under a spam attack and the overwhelming majority of transactions during that period were those spam offer create and cancel spam transactions.

It's a fact it occurred and David responded to that fact on an interesting subject from my point of view. What would be the consequences of a fee increase, also in relation to more network safety? Current business models depending on low transaction fees and so on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"To reduce the number of worthless transactions, David Schwartz said some observers have argued that transaction fees on the XRP Ledger should be raised from 0.0001XRP to something higher."

Lower transaction fees are one of the big advantages of XRP over other cryptocurrencies such as BTC. Raising the transaction fees seems like the wrong solution to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Exactly, raising the price of a transaction fee is a perfect example of not really understanding the problem..

Maybe it’s time for the authors of the XRP ledger to get a handle of their network traffic by optimizing & implementing better regulation of their network. People are obviously mis using the XRP network I don’t see this being much different than YouTube harbouring scammers. Maybe Ripple should step up their game before they are sued by the likes of YouTube.

There should be a validation on-ramp before the general public can transact with the XRP ledger to validate a user/transaction first before broadcasting it across the ledger to mitigate rogue DOS transactions containing 0 value. 

Edited by Scout
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Trisky said:

It's a fact it occurred and David responded to that fact on an interesting subject from my point of view. What would be the consequences of a fee increase, also in relation to more network safety? Current business models depending on low transaction fees and so on?

It's even more pertinent now considering the ability to delete accounts has been passed. That attack would now be cheaper considering 75% of wallet activation costs would be recoverable.

I think the 20 XRP cost for activating a key-pair could be a bit more dynamic while the price is volatile. Price of XRP goes down, activation cost goes up. Not sure how practical that would be to implement.

 

Edited by Flintstone
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WarChest said:

If it is a problem that is. @JoelKatz didn’t seem to see it as such, if my reading of twitter is correct.

I don't see a problem with it either, other than transaction bloat of the XRPL, as long as higher value transactions in terms of payments and fees have precedence over lower ones. Not advice or anything, but given that regulations are increasingly playing a very important role in cryptos, particularly in those countries whose citizens use/invest in cryptos, like the US, as regulations increase, cryptos focusing more heavily on regulations like XRP, XLM, Cardno, will be  more likely to succeed in this increasing globally restrictive regulatory environment than other cryptos.  

Take for example the recent lawsuit of Ripple against youtube.  This has hurt other cryptos on youtube because youtube is now shadow banning crypto vids that have the vaguest appearance of promoting cryptos even if they are not scams, and many cryptos target the general public, like Bitcoin.  So Ripple playing by the rules is able to out leverage other cryptos using existing laws or threat of legal action. I think as other cryptos realize the important of crypto regulations as many of us cryptos enthusiasts myself included have learned the really hard way by watching tons of crpypto equity vanish because of lack of clarity of regulations led to losses of hundreds of domestic crypto markets, causing prices and crypto markets accessibility to crash. Those cryptos that try to play as much by the rules will generally come out on top in the long run, and Ripple has a huge head start over other cryptos in this regard.

When it comes down to it, cryptos are too important an asset to people for speculation, as a new asset class, hedging against fiat inflation, etc. for government's not to regulate as much as possible.  They don't regulate it to protect investors - that's of little importance to them - their primary motivation in the instance of cryptos is to regulate to protect themselves, their jobs, the native currency and their economies based on fiat.

Governments have checks and balances, but when it comes to the people having checks and balances on our governments, our choices are very limited, either voting, writing your congressmen or revolution.  The former two make little to no impact impact in an environment of extensive crony capitalism in the form of symbiotic financial relationships, legislative favors between numerous politicians and corporate lobbyists; and the latter choice is too extreme, like pulling an fire alarm in a crowded building, only to be used in a case of a real emergency for the people.  When you pull that alarm, you better make sure it's under necessary circumstances and if you fail, you fail big - a zero-sum game usually. We have no reasonable mediums between these two extremes of keeping our government in check except for public cryptos.  Public cryptos would make the government and its treasury more accountable and competitive if governments allowed public cryptos to compete with native fiat on a level playing field (which they'll never do at least in the US because USD dominates globally).   Governments that value their fiat will regulate cryptos to the point where it's not feasable to use the latter as a substitute for fiat.  We need younger generations to occupy government positions ASAP.  They realize the value of crypto and there will come a time when cryptos and related coroporations will be able to influence policy as much as the large existing legacy institutions.

Edited by enrique11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get rid of the DEX. Ripple certainly doesn't need it anymore, and it doesn't seem like many others use it either. I wonder how many terabytes of useless offer create/cancel transactions full history nodes have to store :dthinking:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, codex said:

Just get rid of the DEX. Ripple certainly doesn't need it anymore, and it doesn't seem like many others use it either. I wonder how many terabytes of useless offer create/cancel transactions full history nodes have to store :dthinking:

Get rid of one of the coolest parts of the ledger because no one is using it yet?  To save something that is not a problem?

Baby and bath water come to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dogowner5 said:

Get rid of one of the coolest parts of the ledger because no one is using it yet?  To save something that is not a problem?

Baby and bath water come to mind.

I think needing 13TB of SSD storage for a full history node is a pretty clear problem. High volumes of meaningless transactions increase bandwidth and computing costs which make it harder for normal users to run a stock node or validator.

Of course, I don't expect Ripple to seriously consider this as the DEX was the central feature of the RCL when it was created.

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.