Lead developers of XRPL Labs have unveiled "Lite Accounts" proposal: new accounts can be activated with one XRP only

[HAL1000]

https://u.today/xrp-ledger-might-have-new-type-of-account-proposal-submitted

 

[NightJanitor]

Looks like it does the opposite of what it's called.  Having a hard time figuring out what problem it's supposed to solve, exactly, for which there aren't other mechanisms already in place / less space, if it's just an end-run around account reserve.  Kind of creates a class structure, as well - maybe the lower account reserve accounts should pay higher tx fees?  The lower account reserve seems to be a disqualifying factor for trustlines, so, why not juggle all kinds of other social engineering variables if gonna go down that road?  (I wouldn't go down that road.)  The doling out of even 1 XRP to whomever opens a non-custodial account using... whatever... and then trying to keep some right to it - or right to reclaim it, under whatever conditions - also seems... off... in several ways... and cascades into more problems than I, personally, think it could ever solve (and I'm still not sure what it's trying to solve).

Probably lots of good intentions, but seems like it's accompanied by a ton of unintended consequences which maybe aren't that obvious... yet.

(A Björk line comes to mind:  "I thought I could organize freedom / How Scandinavian of me.") 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by NightJanitor
Don't know. But definitely lean "no."

[BillyOckham]

It doesn’t make a lite account.  It actually is a larger root object.  
 

Weitse mentioned in the proposal comments that they get a lot of people accusing them of scamming by Xumm not letting people spend their 20 xrp.  He suggests this proposal will ‘turn down the volume’ on that.

We certainly have seen that kind of misunderstanding here.  I was once here accused of being a scammer in league with Ripple stealing a fee that goes to Ripple.

Having said that…. I would vote no to this if I were a validator,  (which I’m not) because it’s a half fix for a problem created by the anti spam feature.  
 

I think it’s an unavoidable pain point and the sponsor aspect and their ‘powers’ to alter accounts seems fraught with unintended consequences to me.

[NightJanitor]

Think sidechains can/wil fix a lot of this...  Be fun to be able to activate an XRP account with a non-xrp asset, in that way.  (There are probably also interesting ways that webmon could be utilized to accomplish something similar, in the future...)

Anyway, would rather see things that support/attract developers than feature proposals that are inspired by reducing the volume of complaint emails from people who didn't read a word of documentation and then blame someone else for their own issue when they run into a tiny (and entirely avoidable) problem.  Catering to the LCD like that will wind us up with a McDonald's coffee-cup of a ledger, full of warnings that coffee may be hot, shouldn't be poured on one's head, et cetera - ad infinitum.

Definitely good intentions, but a little patience might pay off, even more, in this instance...  Ohwell, we'll see.

[solid102]

The locked XRP mechanic has to either change or reduced one way or another. Imagine XRP at 10 USD that would mean people will have 200USD worth of value locked up. Multiply that by all the XRP wallets and you have half a billion worth of USD locked up and not useable.

[NightJanitor]

37 minutes ago, solid102 said:

The locked XRP mechanic has to either change or reduced one way or another. Imagine XRP at 10 USD that would mean people will have 200USD worth of value locked up. Multiply that by all the XRP wallets and you have half a billion worth of USD locked up and not useable.

Thanks for the math lesson;  I'll rephrase my point:

If one wants to reduce the required weight of a boat anchor, making the boat even heavier by adding structure ain't it. *

(Also, I don't see the anti-spam mechanisms as "problems" - they're adjustable, already - as are the reserve amounts...)

*I coulda gone submarine/ballast, or hot-air-ballon/sandbags or something... but... it's late... and the coffee is a bit cold.

(Nobody warned me that coffee gets cold over time!  This is me *not* writing an email to complain to... Clausius? Who?)

ETA:

[Kinda, what I think they've invented here, is the on-ledger version of sidechains...  Sidechains are sort of "ledger-lite" - in a way - and this "lite account" thing seems to put some of that functionality/flexibility/customizability on-ledger.]

Edited August 30, 2021 by NightJanitor
eta insight?

[xrp-nuke]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:04 AM, solid102 said:

The locked XRP mechanic has to either change or reduced one way or another. Imagine XRP at 10 USD that would mean people will have 200USD worth of value locked up. Multiply that by all the XRP wallets and you have half a billion worth of USD locked up and not useable.

What a poor, worth of "Ignorance of decade" award calculation, based on crap, childish math.

Imagine imagine imagine... connect the dots dots dots 🤣🤣🤣

The silliness of last sentence is outstanding, author exposed 👍

[kanaas]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:04 AM, solid102 said:

The locked XRP mechanic has to either change or reduced one way or another. Imagine XRP at 10 USD that would mean people will have 200USD worth of value locked up. Multiply that by all the XRP wallets and you have half a billion worth of USD locked up and not useable.

Understand, biut it's just about locked up value, WHY then the complexity of new type of sponsored account when simply lowering the reserve from 20 to 10 or 5XRP reaches the same goal?

[kanaas]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:23 AM, BillyOckham said:

It doesn’t make a lite account.  It actually is a larger root object.  
 

Weitse mentioned in the proposal comments that they get a lot of people accusing them of scamming by Xumm not letting people spend their 20 xrp.  He suggests this proposal will ‘turn down the volume’ on that.

We certainly have seen that kind of misunderstanding here.  I was once here accused of being a scammer in league with Ripple stealing a fee that goes to Ripple.

Having said that…. I would vote no to this if I were a validator,  (which I’m not) because it’s a half fix for a problem created by the anti spam feature.  
 

I think it’s an unavoidable pain point and the sponsor aspect and their ‘powers’ to alter accounts seems fraught with unintended consequences to me.

People calling out XUMM for scamming about the reserve do not (want to) understand how XRPL works or they are only trying to undermine the project for personal or other reasons. If they do not have bad intentions then one has to admit that are just to dumb for self-custody and that they are way better of with an account on an exchange. It's that simple and they really do not deserve the efforts of devs to develop special sponsored accounts... as after all it wouldn't make them smarter.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, kanaas said:

Understand, biut it's just about locked up value, WHY then the complexity of new type of sponsored account when simply lowering the reserve from 20 to 10 or 5XRP reaches the same goal?

I agree that this is the right approach if the problem really was around misunderstanding the reserve. The intent behind the reserve was to change it as needed. IIRC, David threw his weight behind (and was supported by the XRPL Foundation) around reducing it to 5 XRP after XRP conclusively crossed $1.

This feels like a platform solution to a user experience problem and the stakeholders are stuck with supporting this forever.

However, there may be other compelling use cases. For example, credit card companies let you hide your actual card number and let you generate one-time-use card numbers that you can use for shopping etc online without fear of leaking your real credit card details.