Dead ripple users
I'd just like to share some of my observation concerning 'dead' users/'non-users' of the ripple network.
At first I (and I know I'm not the only one) was worried that with time, families of wealthy users would eventually grow in power and influence, and that the interconnected credit loops they create would eventually outweigh that of the rest of the networks.
I feel there is now a counterveilling tendency within the network.
Suppose user A and user B have a relationship
A ----(---0----)---- B --- (|-----0-----)----- C
where C has used B's credit, and A, B, C have all allocated credit to eachother.
what happens when B dies or stops using ripple?
step 1), users A and C figure it out, and allocate 0 or some increasingly small amount as the odds of B actually being capable of repricocity or the meaningfulness of maintaining a relationship with B or B's network drops(A might want, for example, to allocate 100$ to B just in case he's still alive and in hiding or something).
A -------(0----)---- B --- (|-----0)---------- C
Note that B has still allocated A (he's dead so he's not going to be doing much changing his credit allocations), but since C owes B, A still has the ability to make a payment to C.
This eventually happens, given that A and C may be used as intermediaries of a further transaction involving other areas of the network, until A owes B his maximum credit or as much as A is going to get from a dead B. C reaches 0, and closes his account
A -------(0----|)---- B
And this link is officially unuseable for further credit.
that is to say - dead users eventually accumulate unspendable debt
So while users may be able to 'store' some value in 'dead users'(for example, families being able to store value in the connections of their senior family members)...there is a limit to this as eventually, people will 'draw out' the resources 'above'(ie from non-users).
There should be a way to 'reduce' the active network by all accounts that do nothing but owe other people before doing any further analysis of the system(ie for payments). They are very similar in nature to accounts with no connections. I'm not sure if the payment routing algorithm takes them out or not(do they?).
Speaking of dead users...it seems that Daniel of raindroplet.info is MIA. Raindroplet is down, taking with it a chunk of my 'credit'. I thought I made a backup of my accounts somewhere, but since I never really *used* the accounts there I may not have.
I think I connected to benharack, raindroplet itself, bitmunchies and one of the /r/ripplers mods. I had not allocated nearly as much as was allocated to me so I had a net benefit of 'just in case' value that I used to back my ripplepay.com accounts, which vanished with my ability to remember why I had the account in the first place. Funny how that works eh? In any case - assuming that it was all the same guy(was it?) who provided my phone, provided trust to the ripplepay network, tried to revolutionize the world with another ebay clone in forum style, and allowed for me to, for example, donate to the ripple network and wikileaks through him. He will be remembered as one of the internet's pioneers who put his money, time and effort where his mouth was, and who tried to reform capitalism itself into a more level form, perhaps as much as any famous economist. And yet, I figure I'm probably the first to even write about his absence other than Ryan Fugger.
Also, he was from canada --- what would cause a man in canada of that nature to disappear so suddenly anyway? What was he into, I wonder? Who did he piss off?
In the meanwhile here's an idea for a ripplepay-like implementation. Have the ability to delete a connection between two users when there's an existing amount outstanding(currently I believe you can only delete when the amount is 0). This could occur but also do something like add the username who does so to a roll of 'bankrupt' users, perhaps with a remark alongside, commentable by both parties of the connection.
This would allow users to say 'I am bankrupt, you cannot trust me' publicly, as well as people to say 'this user is dead'. The website could go to an extra step of 'this is a nuclear option, you should not use this unless you absolutely cannot agree to pay this back -- after all one day you could have this debt paid by someone else on the network'. Or we could leave it off, assuming that 'dead accounts' will always get in debt they cannot pay to the extent that they themselves had credit(!).
At first I (and I know I'm not the only one) was worried that with time, families of wealthy users would eventually grow in power and influence, and that the interconnected credit loops they create would eventually outweigh that of the rest of the networks.
I feel there is now a counterveilling tendency within the network.
Suppose user A and user B have a relationship
A ----(---0----)---- B --- (|-----0-----)----- C
where C has used B's credit, and A, B, C have all allocated credit to eachother.
what happens when B dies or stops using ripple?
step 1), users A and C figure it out, and allocate 0 or some increasingly small amount as the odds of B actually being capable of repricocity or the meaningfulness of maintaining a relationship with B or B's network drops(A might want, for example, to allocate 100$ to B just in case he's still alive and in hiding or something).
A -------(0----)---- B --- (|-----0)---------- C
Note that B has still allocated A (he's dead so he's not going to be doing much changing his credit allocations), but since C owes B, A still has the ability to make a payment to C.
This eventually happens, given that A and C may be used as intermediaries of a further transaction involving other areas of the network, until A owes B his maximum credit or as much as A is going to get from a dead B. C reaches 0, and closes his account
A -------(0----|)---- B
And this link is officially unuseable for further credit.
that is to say - dead users eventually accumulate unspendable debt
So while users may be able to 'store' some value in 'dead users'(for example, families being able to store value in the connections of their senior family members)...there is a limit to this as eventually, people will 'draw out' the resources 'above'(ie from non-users).
There should be a way to 'reduce' the active network by all accounts that do nothing but owe other people before doing any further analysis of the system(ie for payments). They are very similar in nature to accounts with no connections. I'm not sure if the payment routing algorithm takes them out or not(do they?).
Speaking of dead users...it seems that Daniel of raindroplet.info is MIA. Raindroplet is down, taking with it a chunk of my 'credit'. I thought I made a backup of my accounts somewhere, but since I never really *used* the accounts there I may not have.
I think I connected to benharack, raindroplet itself, bitmunchies and one of the /r/ripplers mods. I had not allocated nearly as much as was allocated to me so I had a net benefit of 'just in case' value that I used to back my ripplepay.com accounts, which vanished with my ability to remember why I had the account in the first place. Funny how that works eh? In any case - assuming that it was all the same guy(was it?) who provided my phone, provided trust to the ripplepay network, tried to revolutionize the world with another ebay clone in forum style, and allowed for me to, for example, donate to the ripple network and wikileaks through him. He will be remembered as one of the internet's pioneers who put his money, time and effort where his mouth was, and who tried to reform capitalism itself into a more level form, perhaps as much as any famous economist. And yet, I figure I'm probably the first to even write about his absence other than Ryan Fugger.
Also, he was from canada --- what would cause a man in canada of that nature to disappear so suddenly anyway? What was he into, I wonder? Who did he piss off?
In the meanwhile here's an idea for a ripplepay-like implementation. Have the ability to delete a connection between two users when there's an existing amount outstanding(currently I believe you can only delete when the amount is 0). This could occur but also do something like add the username who does so to a roll of 'bankrupt' users, perhaps with a remark alongside, commentable by both parties of the connection.
This would allow users to say 'I am bankrupt, you cannot trust me' publicly, as well as people to say 'this user is dead'. The website could go to an extra step of 'this is a nuclear option, you should not use this unless you absolutely cannot agree to pay this back -- after all one day you could have this debt paid by someone else on the network'. Or we could leave it off, assuming that 'dead accounts' will always get in debt they cannot pay to the extent that they themselves had credit(!).