Jump to content

tev

Member
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tev

  1. I disagree strongly. The coins at the hardware wallet's address will not go anywhere if the hardware wallet isn't plugged in, so the short term risk can be eliminated by doing nothing. The long term risk is that a future upgrade either deletes the private keys or introduces malware into the hardware wallet; but this long term risk can be eliminated by using the time (the long term…) to learn how to switch off WiFi and unplug ethernet cables. Edit: I forgot the other long term risk, which is neglecting to upgrade and thus being vulnerable to exploits. Doesn't change the safest strategy though.
  2. This discussion is getting more and more surreal. Guarding against failure of a key-storage device by entrusting an asset to an uninsured counterparty? That's like guarding against holes in your pockets by getting a third party to install their own locks on your front door. Why not just make copies of the original keys and keep then in a safe place?
  3. Exactly. Here are two in-browser tools that can read 24-word seeds:— @Warbler's bithomp tools Ian Coleman's mnemonic code converter. Obviously, they're best used on a non-networked computer, preferably having booted from a liveCD. Bithomp tools is probably the more convenient for XRP, but mnemonic code converter is OK too if you don't mind importing a private key into something like @ripplerm's in-browser wallet-software. I don't own any hardware wallets because they sound like a laborious and expensive way of being less secure. Perhaps I'm being too complacent about BadUSB, but there are secure cold-signing methods that use QR codes.
  4. If it's declared a security, then the entity that declares it so will look rather silly unless they can explain:— What rights each XRP token confers on its holder. Who is bound by the corresponding obligation (since one person's right is another persons obligation; e.g. your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is my obligation to refrain from taking those things from you). When XRP tokens acquired this property of conferring rights on their holders (tricky, since XRP existed before Ripple Labs Inc., and will continue to exist if Ripple Labs Inc is disbanded — assuming someone somewhere continues running a full node). If you don't have the right to run a full node (as in the point above), then who is the other party who is spared an obligation to refrain from forcibly preventing you?
  5. All Tethers are created from thin air: they are IOUs. Anyone, including you, can create an IOU just by writing on a sheet of paper “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of one billion dollars”. You might have trouble persuading anyone to trust your billion dollar IOU, but that's not stopping you from writing it out. Tethers are much the same, except they're issued on the Omnilayer of the Bitcoin blockchain instead of on sheets of paper. The allegation last year was that the issuer (tether.to) had issued more USDT they they had USD to back them with — which would be a lot like your billion dollar IOU if you don't actually have 1 billion dollars. Three days ago, CoinDesk reported that tether.to have just updated their web page to the following: Searching the internet turns up a variety of opinions on Tether, some sceptical and some not. Personally, I quite like BitMEX's Feb 2018 study.
  6. I underestimated you! It looks Wietse Wind has written an in-browser tool that can interpret your 24 magic words. You don't need it now, but it's worth knowing about as a Plan B that's independent of your device. (To match to security of a hardware wallet, it would have to be saved locally and used on a non-networked computer, ideally booted from a LiveCD.) Also useful if ever the lack of trustline functionality in the Nano becomes a limiting factor for you, as in this earlier thread.
  7. Your main risk seems to be that you've sent Zerps to your Nano's address without first putting a fallback plan in place for when the manufacturers go and out business and you lose your device. Not a gamble that I would take!
  8. Open pull requests are listed at https://github.com/ripple/rippled/pulls. if the owner of the repository likes them enough, those pull requests will be committed. You don't have to be a Ripple employee to submit a pull request, but the people with the power to commit them (or reject them) are presumably Ripple employees. At the top-right of the page I've linked to, there's a Fork button. If you have a GitHub account, there's nothing to stop you clicking that button. Whether or not anyone then chooses to run the Caracappa fork is another matter. The magic word you're looking for, in a permissionless system, is consensus. The license says what you're allowed to do without permission.
  9. What's stopping some other company from selling a technology that uses the same DA to make transactions faster and cheaper? Anyone can clone this GitHub repository.
  10. If we assume that the market is rational (yes, I know, it can stay irrational for longer than I can stay solvent…), then the price of XRP will go up if enough speculators believe one of the following two scenarios to be true: Ripple's business model is valid and the current price of XRP is presently below the present and/or future optimum range for Ripple's interests. XRP is destined to acquire new uses (non-government-controlled peer-to-peer electronic cash perhaps?) that are independent of Ripple's fortunes. Obviously, not all players in the market are speculators. As with the forex markets, some players are traders, with the skill and self-discipline to make money out of upward moves and downward moves.
  11. Fair enough, but how do you think it should be correlated? My simplistic understanding is that Ripple's business model works best if XRP has moderate volatility within a limited range, but I have no idea what price the volatility would ideally have as its midpoint. If you think this is wrong, then I'm open to changing my mind. And if you think I'm right, have you determined what you think is a sensible price-range for XRP to move within?
  12. We have yet to see what will happen if there's a fee market, although there's much discussion about it between the two sides in the capped versus inflating arguments that rage elsewhere. But I'm not really trying to pick an argument with you, because we agree that Bitcoin's energy consumption is a problem.
  13. You don't want to undermine your own valid arguments by overstating them. The trouble with comparing BTC to XRP is that most of the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network is being used to generate new coins, whereas the energy consumed by the XRP network is all being used to validate transactions. Therefore, a more valid comparision would be with a capped PoW currency that's reached the end of its emission phase and is now dependent on a fees market to incentivize its transaction validators. Effectively, Bitcoin's huge energy consumption is the price of its distribution model (and only secondarily the price of its transaction-validation model). I'm not discouraging you from criticising Bitcoin's distribution model: I'm just trying to avoid confusion between distribution controversies and validation controversies! A definitive analysis of this subject would probably have to address the implication of Szilard's engine — the relationship between thermodynamics and information. Trust requires information about the people you're trusting, so if Szilard was right, trust has an energy cost. The Bitcoiners would probably point to the energy consumption of human validators and the energy used to illuminate/heat their offices and power their computers. If some smart mathematician has managed to reconcile BFT with the Szilard engine (or debunk the latter?), then it needs to be communicated in a way that we lesser mortals can understand.
  14. tev

    toast wallet

    Have you considered a non-electronic backup? Simplest & most versatile would be your account's secret (beginning with “s”) written on paper and hidden somewhere that's not going to be affected by fire or dampness. Incidentally, Wietse Wind uses the name family seed to refer to the secret. (I'm assuming you're not doing anything esoteric with “regular” keys.)
  15. Quicker for arbitrageurs to move around?
  16. Or does it stand for RipplePay? It looks like the RipplePay web site has been preserved for posterity here.
  17. Stay away from any countries whose intelligence agencies may have created the vulnerability. Here's the example you don't want to follow: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/03/fbi-arrests-wannacry-hero-marcus-hutchins-las-vegas-reports/
  18. The Law Society would fight that tooth and nail, since the present dysfunctionality is very lucrative for their members. Every time a conveyancing solicitor sabotages one link, other law firms along the chain get the chance to claim repeat fees.
  19. Since you're sceptical about the security of the address that your tokens are now at, you probably want to create a cold address. This usually means using wallet-software on a computer that's not connected to the internet (e.g. booted off a CD, with the wallet-software introduced via a USB stick), and then writing the new secret on a sheet of paper (taking great care to copy it accurately!). If using a live CD to generate a cold address, I suggest choosing a live CD that includes a full web browser so that you can run in-browser address-generating software.
  20. If the money that you tried to send to your account was the proceeds of selling XRP or BTC, they've got no excuses since the XRP and BTC ledgers are completely public and transparent (unlike a bank ledger!). If your BTC or XRP were previously held at an address controlled by you, then the magic of asymmetric cryptography allows you to provide mathematically rigorous proof of ownership of that address. Whether or not your bank recognises mathematical rigour is another matter...
  21. The XRP and Bitcoin networks both have to solve the Double Spend Problem. That is, they both have to prevent fraudsters from spending the same coins twice. Bitcoin solves this problem by competition, whereas the XRP network solves the same problem by consensus. Bitcoin's competitive solution to the problem is was described by Nakamoto here, and XRP's consensus solution was described by Schwartz, Youngs & Britto here. Bitcoin's competitive approach incentivizes miners to acquire more and more hash power, i.e. the ability to compute cryptographic hashes, since that's the activity at which they're competing. Cryptographic hashes do have a role to play in the XRP ledger, but it's not a competitive role, so there isn't a hash-power arms race. For Bitcoin to be decentralized, it's required that nobody own more than 51% of the hash-power. The conditions for the XRP network to be decentralized are more subtle, and I'll leave it to other to explain. A cryptographic hash is a superior version of a checksum. Think of the barcodes on supermarket packaging. If a supermarket barcode is damaged, instead of misreading it, the barcode-reader rejects it: this is because the last few bars are a checksum for the rest of the code, and a damaged barcode's checksum is almost certainly going to clash with the misread numbers in the damaged portion.
×
×
  • Create New...