Jump to content

jbjnr

Silver Member
  • Posts

    706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by jbjnr

  1. The most accurate implementation that I'm aware of is this one https://liyuliang001.github.io/publications/sundial.pdf but it is not strictly byzantine tolerant - it can handle some drift of individual nodes (I think by simply ignoring ones that go out of sync - apologies, I read this when it was first published and have forgotten the details) - but a byzantine node deliberately spoiling the clock would be difficult to detect initially and reject. At best one would have to use the same trust based consensus to only listen to ones we `think` are honest. The algorithm is expensive to implement. The references link to other simpler (less accurate?) synchronization algorithms.
  2. Still not regretting that I sold all my SGB early on when the price was 4-5x higher ...
  3. I'm not regretting my decision to sell all my SGB early. Question is, when will someone actually start using the network for real business that will drive actual 'value' into the network? Are many being rolled out? (Gala games(?) was going to use flare, is there a list anywhere of real-life users of SGB or FLR to come? <I should search the forum really>).
  4. Such a shame that xrpchat has been ruined by childish rants like these.
  5. My knowledge of xrpl is limited. I work on some of the largest computers in the world writing distributed asynchronous software and I understand the tech, but the xrpl itself, I have only browsed through the code and integrated small bits that I need into my software. The ledger aims to make large numbers of cheap transactions possible. The larger and cheaper the better ideally. Scammers want large numbers of cheap transactions so that their business model of farming airdrops and harvesting small amounts of xrp/other from anyone who trades them. The cheaper and faster the ledger runs, the better for the scammers - unless of course their income is reduced by people refusing to participate (hopefully rewards will reduce as time goes by). Wikipedia does not have the same kind of business incentive for abuse (other than the usual conspiracy theorists editing pages that push their beliefs). The ledger ought to attract users like mercuryfx or flashfx or whoever, to run nodes to ensure that their business is efficient, but they are only interested in making money. They don't need to spend $ on running nodes when they already have business contracts with ripple and pay for various services from them. Ripple of course doesn't want to be seen as a central coordinator for the ledger, so began the process of handing over control of it some time back. Running nodes on xrpl is essentially transferring wealth from 'volunteers' (and ripple's sales) to business entities making profits from the xrpl (and scammers). If the system can be gamed, it will be gamed. People like us donate to wikipedia because it is a great resource, for us, for our children, for humanity, the whole world knows, uses and has the opportunity to donate to wikipedia. People are probably donating to xrpl to keep the network running so they can make more $ when it moons. Comparing wikipedia to the xrpl is unreasonable in my view. Forgive me, but I did not say that xrp is a security. Nobody (maybe someone at the SEC, but I doubt it) believes that xrp itself is a security (and hopefully that's where their lawsuit will fail). Ripple sold xrp for 8 years and funded their business from the income, they were and remain the organisation most likely to bring value to xrp. In the SEC's eyes - that's a security violation. I have no problem with that and want them to pay the fine and move on. I agree with that and have stated it many times on this forum. (For consensus and low fees). What I am worried about currently is network stability and the fact that the software I previously thought/assumed was first class, might not actually be. When I submit thousands of trustline set transactions and balance queries, and want to know what their status is, I only need the current ledger, or last few, not the whole history. when I want to be notified of orderbook changes, balance changes, streams of data from websockets, I do not need the whole history.
  6. I'm siding with @xrp-nukeon this one. @Ripleyis right that nearly all of crypto is a ponzi, but the incentives problem is very real for xrp and xrpl. Wikipedia is a terrible comparison @BillyOckham. xrp is totally different. Ripley running a validator node is useless. More validator nodes doesn't help the problem, full history and API server nodes are needed, but they generate no income and cost $$$ to run. The only people making enough $$$ from xrp to pay for these resources are ripple themselves (and people they fund). Fixing the fee escalation problem and other technical issues with the existing code requires months of work that someone has to pay for. I could do it, but, I need to generate an income, I'm not going to quit work to do it. Ripple and ripple funded parties are the only ones with the time to do it. Ripple are incentivized by their massive xrp warchest - they need the ledger to work. I'm against incentives - or at least validator incentives (incentives = ponzi), but the current issues with the network are making me realize that the long term viability of xrp is at stake. Ripple are in a court case that argues centralization is the problem (and yes, I still believe they're guilty and should settle, pay the fine and move on). Discussion on how to monetize API access is taking place - coil to the rescue! - If only!. That would be the winning strategy - if an xrp enabled tech could monetize the FH and API nodes by charging for access, whilst still keeping the network essentially free of incentives for main operation. Such a pity there is a centralized organization that could pay for this development with their warchest of xrp - or maybe there is ...
  7. This is the supposed to be the XRP price speculation thread. Can we please move discussion about the ongoing problems being caused by 500k trustlines per day (or however many) caused by airdrop farmers and countless shittokens on the ledger to a more appropriate thread.
  8. Also remember that The hidden gem referred to is All of the above mean that on Dec 6th, the SEC has to answer questions that might weaken it's own case against ripple, and if that were the case, it would increase the likelihood of a settlement. IMHO this may be enough to start price action on XRP because of anticipation of something good for XRP and bad for SEC. just my $0.02 Quotes came from https://financefeeds.com/ripples-string-wins-analyzed-xrp-lawsuit-drag-spring-2022/ and https://financefeeds.com/sec-v-ripple-what-to-wait-for-in-xrp-lawsuit-agenda/
  9. ^this. Unfortunately, in order to not seem centralized, ripple gave up being the maintainer of the majority of validators and handed control over to the great unwashed public. Sadly, the whole purpose of no incentives for running validators, is to keep costs down (for payments remember!), and these same costs being low is what attracts the scammers. Lowering the wallet reserves makes it even better for them. I have lost a great deal of confidence in xrp recently - not because of ripple or the SEC, but because of the lack of ripple. I bought my "100% it's a security" token xrp because I wanted to invest in a system that was going to change the world of finance, led by a company who knew what they were doing, not so that xrdoge, xshrooms, hugetits, etc etc could spam the ledger. It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how. The Stellar ledger would be a much better place to put all this rubbish!
  10. You should care. All these pathetic scam projects are causing the xrpl to struggle. 23 minutes without progress last week. it's serious. Everyone participating is creating an economic incentive for these scams to multiply. In regulated markets, one is illegal, the other isn't. Making markets is taking/making other people's bids/offers. Wash trading is making and taking your own. There's no easy way to tell them apart when the markets are unregulated and all your wallets/collaborators are not being checked by a third party constantly. Unfortunately, it happens in regulated markets too and is hard to track/trace. Assume everything is a scam unless it has a purpose to exist.
  11. Please don't confuse Flare and Flare finance. I did not buy SGB to get the FF airdrop and it was FF I was talking about in my post. Their phase I is still stuck with no progress and nests locked. Stopped following what they are up to a few weeks ago and last I looked, still no progress.
  12. No doubt in my mind that the people behind FF will have sold truck loads of SGB in the lead up to their announcement of the delay (such a shame that there's no regulation in this space). I sold all my SGB early (and used the proceeds for XRP) and was thinking of buying back in to SGB prior to the airdrop, but as the price rose in the last week, I decided to stay away. So I do think the airdrop had a very noticable effect on the price of SGB, but too much for me. The lure of another airdrop is indeed strong - but not quite strong enough ... [My decision was, however, made by the observation - What would I rather have - a truck of of xrp with a guaranteed use case, solid business plan and a possible end to the SEC case any moment? ... or some dodgy deFi tokens produced by anonymous people? (and what's the status of phase II of their rollout, still nothing after weeks of waiting?)] I suspect, SGB will slowly fall for the next few weeks, then prior to the Dec airdrop, start rising again, reaching a peak on the day of the airdrop - (then, it'll drop hard again ...) Prediction : FF will not announce the exact time (block number) of the airdrop snapshot, because if they don't do that, they can offload a ton of SGB before everyone else and trouser another sackload of $$$. EDIT: I just checked and FF announced "December 12th, 2021 at 7PM CET" for their airdrop, so I'm sorry that I misjudged them - they are not as bad as I thought and clearly do not have dishonest intentions. Please accept my apologies.
  13. How many times a day do you think it is appropriate to look at something of this kind? /unsubscribe xrpchat
  14. AFAIK The codius/Hotpocket stuff being developed for xrp run containerized blockchains on subnetworks. These can hold secret keys and therefore sign transactions.
  15. If I were writing the script, I'd be initially looking for batches of addresses that were all created from the same parent wallet (or close hierarchy of ancestors as they would probably create N wallets and NxM sub wallets and you'd want to identify the M's in clumps and look back to see if they are related to other batches. Then look at time of creation, if many wallets are being created from wallets in close proximity timewise, then they would be flagged. Then look at trustline creation - if all the wallets are created, then have one transaction shortly after in time where the trustline was set...Then look at absolute time - are they all done in the few weeks before a well known airdrop and in relatively consecutive ledgers? If you created many wallets (like me), several years ago, at random times, or in small batches, and then only set a trustline very recently - you'd not be flagged. You'd want to try to be careful about wallets being created by exchanges, xumm, etc as there's many people using them and as a airdrop approaches, they will naturally start spawning child wallets, so careful filtering would be needed ... Now if they started a few weeks ago and randomized things a bit - it might be tough - and now that airdrops of native xrpl tokens (as opposed to balance snapshots like flare) are becoming more commonplace, they can reuse these wallets in future for other ones. ledger bloat.
  16. run a script over the addresses to get creation time and parent wallet info (might need more ancestry if the bots have been careful), blacklist lots of accounts that appear to have been created from clusters of 'bot-like' wallets, some unfortunate people might lose out if they are unlucky and get caught in the crossfire and are classified as a bot account when they're not. When they reduced the ledger reserve from 20xrp they were opening the doors a little wider to this kind of thing. Plus Xumm making it easy for everyone to open trustlines and mint their own tokens has caused a flood of new crap-coins to appear. Such is life, if it can be gamed, it will be.
  17. Please forgive me for being belligerent yesterday - You are of course right in the sense that providing those feeds is providing a 'service' to the network and adding 'value' in the sense that it is something useful that is needed. Clearly the designers think so too, because inflation of 10% is being given to people delegating to those price feeds, and that isn't a step taken lightly. They can't give tokens to the internals that monitor the state, so vote delegation is a proxy for that. I really meant value in the monetary sense. the $ flowing into the system (fees) and $ going out of the system (token sales + inflation). If the network proves useful, then that value will be manifest. In my rant yesterday, I skipped another important detail - $ can flow into the system purely due to 'perceived value' - what @Seoulite refers to and ... I get upset by this constant reference to 'yield' on all these networks. It's only yield if $$$ is flowing into the network, otherwise it's just ponzi-conomics. You don't know that. I'm talking out of my arse as much as everyone else on this forum. The very first thing you see on the flare homepage is "Unlocking value". What they don't say is "By locking up 2.5x the amount you free". We are not in disagreement about enabling dumb chains, but the unlocking value is the first thing you see and the first thing hugo talks about when justifying flare. [I know that I'm wrong about the economics of these blockchains, because I don't think BTC can keep going up, and yet it does, it leaks value massively, Ethereum seems to have no real business cases bringing true value in, and neither do most of the other blockchains, yet here we are, at 2 trillion market cap]. NB. In my rant of yesterday, I erroneously said rewards on creating f-assets- but I mean collateralizing them with FLR. My apologies to adding to the confusion.
  18. No. All the FTSO does is provide price feeds. It is the job of the state connector to take proof of payment from one network onto flare so that chains can interoperate 'trustlessly' No value creation going on there. Thankyou @thinlyspreadAt least someone get's it - but It's not the locked collateral that will add value - it is the fees charged for minting those F-Assets. This is the only way that value can really enter the system. FTSO rewards are produced by inflation, which sucks value away as (or if) people sell continuously. F-Assets rewards (and I cannot find details that make sense on where they actually come from or at what rate) will be paid to people to hold f-assets (because lets face it why would anyone lock up all their collateral unless they were being paid to do so) - and these will suck value out of the system. The only value going into the system is the fees paid to mint those F-assets. With 10% inflation, plus f-asset rewards (please someone tell me how much and if they are included in the 10%) - then the input to the system has to be greater than 10% per annum - that means that if the system has value currently at (say 5 billion - which is roughly the SGB network as I write this), then people must generate fees worth >$500million by minting assets to drive value upwards. With the fees on minting being (we're told in the whitepaper, but do we actually believe anything in that document?) at 5% of the amount minted, that means that 20*$500million worth of f-assets must be minted ($10billion) - which in turn means the valuation of FLR itself has to be much higher to support that in the form of collateralization. Now the question is - who is going to want to mint $10billion and pay $500million in fees for F-assets? The people who want to use the network of course. Now when the queue of people wanting to mint assets forms, that's when you know it's a good investment, so far, I'm only seeing flare finance, and they are just minting more coins out of thin air, not generating any actual value through economic activity). The purpose of Flare is to unlock all that locked up capital on (smart contract free) blockchains - but it has to lock up 2.5x the value to do it. Slightly ironic. So to get that $10billion of f-assets locked up, FLR will need to be worth in excess of $25billion to do it. Anything less than this and the system leaks value, but it's more complex than that because there is feedback in (at least) two places. The f-assets system is collateralized by FLR and the inflation rate decreases value of FLR, which decreases the collateral value - which affects the baseline of our deflation assumptions - and now I've forgotten what I wanted to add about the second feedback loop. I'm writing this of the top of my head, so it's all probably wrong anyway - it not like anyone cares about this stuff anyway. If everyone wants to lock up their valuable tokens and get F-tokens in return, and pay 5% (on each lockup), then all is well, but if the system has to pay out %10 annually to make them do it, then it's going to take a lot of "economic activity" to make that pay net positive (that's a lot of crypto kitties). You can't simply assume that (say) $50billion worth of BTC and XRP locked up, drives the FLR price rise to match the collateral, because the cashing out will constantly drive down the price. (there's a feedback loop there, as dropping price requires more FLR locked as collateral and rising, requires less). (If someone wants to generate $50billion worth of f-assets, but there isn't enough FLR to do it ...) I think a proper simulation of the price dynamics is in order, cos it's all a bit much to assess without a formal analysis. If nobody uses the system and needs F-assets, then the value goes to zero. If the system becomes popular and lots of f-assets are minted, then fees (and indirectly collateral) add value. What else have I missed? Please someone check my maths, because I must have missed something obvious. And, yes, I'm quite aware that none of this matters anyway, because it's crypto and everyone can only see free $$$ tokens and this is enough to drive the price to the moon as they anticipate their boundless rewards.
  19. That only works in markets where regulators actually make rules and people abide by them. Crypto is not part of that yet. Why not ask the SEC to sue those exchanges that are not handing out free tokens? And whilst you're at it, why not ask the flare finance team to disclose their identities since the exchanges will be wanting to not hand out free tokens from them soon as well.
  20. "At the moment, at least 13 high-profile companies have applied to the SEC to launch a Bitcoin ETF and are currently awaiting an answer. And ETF experts say it is likely one will, at last, get approved on October 18. The ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF is the one currently slated for an October 18 deadline. " Source. some random crypto news site that probably didn't fact check anything. Warning - neither did I.
  21. As the others have mentioned, votes/rewards are capped. But bear in mind that the voting epoch started on Sat, so new votes going to A-FTSO shouldn't (if we're to believe the rules that nobody really explains) make any difference until the next epoch starts. I myself delegated to #2 and #3 on the list this time because I was worried that millions might pick A-FTSO at the last minute and go over the threshold before the epoch started. [Not wanting to be too gloaty or anything, but "my sell the lot and earn % on stuff I don't own" strategy is going rather well, getting almost 1.8% on something I already sold, and at the same time, got 12% (so far?) on the stuff I bought. I'm giving this a trip-advisor * * * * * 5 star "must try" rating ]. edit: change 2.5% to 1.8% because I did it wrong
  22. Well, I've bitten the bullet. It's Sat morning, I've claimed all my rewards from last week and I've started earning for this week. I unwrapped everything, sent it all to bitrue and traded it for xrp. If XRP moons or SGB tanks, then all is well. If SGB moons and/or XRP tanks, then I am happy to have more xrp than I used to, but we'll see next Thurs morning what the state of play is. I've now sold 100% of my SGB (less couple of coins to keep 'just in case' for transactions costs - (but still earning 1-2% on my sold stash!)). [The 50% of SGB I traded for XRP in week 1, is relatively speaking worth 60% more than the 50% I just sold, so I don't feel much pain about losing the rest of my SGB and I can still buy back prior to 5th Nov at these prices without any loss]
  23. Yes. This is the problem. In principle, every transaction issued by an account might alter the total WSGB in that account (and destination accounts) and so the smart contract would essentially need to track every transaction on every wallet all the time to monitor the WSGB amounts continuously. The original whitepaper didn't have any of this guff about voting/reward epochs and clearly things have morphed considerably from the original ideas. I like the idea that you can sell on Sat, but back Thu morning and try to manipulate the prices in between - Let's hope this results in more incentives for FTSO feeds to be gamed as well. Does anyone know what's going on with the 51 nests problem that is being mentioned on discord? I can't wade through all that, but it looks like transitioning to the next phase of flare finance is being held up by non-closed nests ....
  24. Yes. This is what I understood. The % delegation is locked in to the providers you selected - but I did not see anywhere that it says that you continue to receive rewards even after moving the tokens away, only that when transferring from one wallet to another, the % delegation to providers is honoured (and I assumed, on the new amounts in the wallet).
×
×
  • 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.