Whilst I support a marginal increase in tx fees for the above stated reasons, one important feature we could also consider leveraging from the xrp ledger to increase security and mitigate ddos risks is the fact that wallets require a certain amount of xrp tokens to be locked to active a wallet. This significantly increases the cost of an attack over and above the transaction fee itself and reduces some of the excess liquidity. Maybe we could find the right balance between tx fee increase and a reserve amount of xdc to activate/ maintain a wallet to help solve the above.
Yes but, even a marginal increase in tx fee is not significant to deter a ddos attack that could lead to millions + in damages or theft. If this proposal is partially about security, why not include it in this proposal? If we are not addressing security properly in this proposal, it becomes less about security and more focused on increasing rewards for masternode holders...
There are a number of decisions we'll have to make going forward. For now, I've only proposed increasing the TX fees. There are a number of possibilities that open up after we increase the TX fees, like establishing a burn and changing the way in which MNs are rewarded, but those are big decisions, which require additional proposals and votes. For now, you're simply voting on whether to increase TX fees (security being the main reason for that). Later, if this vote passes, we'll vote on how much to increase the fees by, the burn, and the MN rewards.
I agree we need to address security 100% and i thank you for your time and effort you have put into this proposal, but this feels like we are approaching it from the bottom up and figuring it out as we go along as opposed to a top down approach where we have a more complete vision in mind and are executing on individual proposals that work towards that more complete vision.
I vote against this proposal for now, though assume I'll be out voted, however in the future regardless of outcome, I would be happy to work with you to frame subsequent proposals in a different way that present a more complete vision.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Whilst I support a marginal increase in tx fees for the above stated reasons, one important feature we could also consider leveraging from the xrp ledger to increase security and mitigate ddos risks is the fact that wallets require a certain amount of xrp tokens to be locked to active a wallet. This significantly increases the cost of an attack over and above the transaction fee itself and reduces some of the excess liquidity. Maybe we could find the right balance between tx fee increase and a reserve amount of xdc to activate/ maintain a wallet to help solve the above.
Good suggestion. In future proposals, we'll carefully consider all available options, including this ones.
Yes but, even a marginal increase in tx fee is not significant to deter a ddos attack that could lead to millions + in damages or theft. If this proposal is partially about security, why not include it in this proposal? If we are not addressing security properly in this proposal, it becomes less about security and more focused on increasing rewards for masternode holders...
There are a number of decisions we'll have to make going forward. For now, I've only proposed increasing the TX fees. There are a number of possibilities that open up after we increase the TX fees, like establishing a burn and changing the way in which MNs are rewarded, but those are big decisions, which require additional proposals and votes. For now, you're simply voting on whether to increase TX fees (security being the main reason for that). Later, if this vote passes, we'll vote on how much to increase the fees by, the burn, and the MN rewards.
I agree we need to address security 100% and i thank you for your time and effort you have put into this proposal, but this feels like we are approaching it from the bottom up and figuring it out as we go along as opposed to a top down approach where we have a more complete vision in mind and are executing on individual proposals that work towards that more complete vision.
I vote against this proposal for now, though assume I'll be out voted, however in the future regardless of outcome, I would be happy to work with you to frame subsequent proposals in a different way that present a more complete vision.