Talinos

This is the new List : Shoutout to @xrp_STuart

Hey guys, is Number 17 now closed? As far as I can read it the court granted the joint motion to relate and consolidate "Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement, LLC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 20-3022-RS "(here number 20)with the instant action. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06753/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06753-3.pdf

@ScoutBack to your FUD Cave please. This is just false. ON Topic: Tiffany Hayden also sold her complete XML stack and there wasnt any toxic elements involved. She is just hurt on a personally level because her insinder rights were removed and even her validator was removed from the dUNL. Also her constant attacks didnt get the responses she liked. In context of being toxic i want to remind you all that she even made fake Twitter profiles to make fun of people and groups. iF this isnt toxic I dont know what is.

For me this is a topic that isnt debated enough. Its a fact that the XRPL network nearly halted one time and that running a validator does not give you any advantage if you are not a programmer or user of the xrpl. BUT its also a fact that since 7 years the network didnt halt and that there are a lot of enthusiastic people out there that run a validator. Also it seems that companys that would have a monetary intrest that the xrpl runs are growing( liek sologenic and money gram) and will likely take over the UNL. So yes Tiffany over dramatized it a bit and the network validators seem to stabililze itself in the future like David Schwartz said.

I wanna highlight the fact that(page 7 -line 8) : "neither plaintiff nor defendants alleged or proffered any judicially noticeable fact showing any other specific instances of XRP sales between December 2014 and 2016." and Line 15 "The earliest indication of XRP’s listing on an exchange that plaintiff alleges is May 18, 2017. Id. ¶ 44." So it was already discussed but Ripple could not prove that it was listed before the named date. Seems likely they cant prove it and thus it wont be a reason to dismiss the case.

Dont think I can follow this reasoning (sadly). The SEC Filling also had to be made for all other funding rounds. They dont seem to include the xrp thematic since the argument still is debated in the current lawsuit and isnt denied ( where other claims are dismissed). So I am pretty sure this question is still valid. Dont get me wrong I admire Brad but his words may hunt him now. From the current ruling of the lawsuit he will be personally held liability if it is really a security. Also I would like to add: His statement that XRP does not qualify as a “security” is just a position on a legal question. In my thoughts XRP was a security. With the stop of the direct and OTC-sells it isnt anymore.

Thank you for this post! Could you clarify why they split the escrow into 2 parts this year?

Then you are wrong. The SEC has nodes in many crypto projects even in Nexo. Which is a security. So running a node does not clear the security question in any form.

Pump up this number: 4,6 Billion. Sauce: https://xrptracker.kka72.com/

Hey Guys, recently I saw a lot of talk about Jed Mccalebs XRP. I just wanted to ask: are we already in the seventh year? Can he already sell more then 2 B per year or is the timeline different and we are now in the 6th year ? Selling possibilities: $10,000 per week during the first year $20,000 per week during the second, third and fourth years 750 million XRP per year for the fifth and sixth years 1 billion XRP per year for the seventh year 2 billion XRP per year after the seventh year

I would like to first simplify your example and de-rant it a bit since it is very good . If a supermarket (Orderbook) runs out of fruit (Xrp) then a second supermarket( second Orderbook) just immediately fills in the needed fruits (XRP) (-imagine beaming the fruits). This is a great function of the xrp ledger(called bridging) and thus would normaly debunk the shane ellis theory. - (see paths on the https://xrpl.org/ I added a picture for a better understanding). When I say normally your know there is some more. As you can see via normal order there is no way Shane Ellis could be right! But we still have gateaways. Since i dont know the specific functions of a gateway I dont know if it would be possible there. For example there is bitso gateway for mexico. This gateway is a so called issuing Gateway. All currencies on this gateway , except for XRP, take the form of issuances tied to this specific issuing gateway. So I dont exactly know if an specific issued gateway order can use different order books for its xrp executions. If this would be the case Shane Ellis could still be right. I would be happy if you have information on that specific case!

This is a good question. I would also like to add a question. Do CBDC ´s need an extra settlement(or settlement provider) or are settlement and payment basicly simultan because of its digital character ?

So you are really into the assumption that banks use win 95 and disks? I dont think you mean a bank as whole. You mean certain services. For these(for you outdated services) there is simply no alternative or the alternative is not economical. For example in my bank we had some programm which gave us an overview over certain transfer purpose. Yes it was an 3270 emulation- yes you couldnt use a mouse BUT it was highly effective. You just had to press a certain code ( like F10- x-n-1-4-F10 - also for certain codes you had a bot thats it. So yeah we could have upgraded it but it would have been much slower or the same speed. Also we would had to buy new server +new software +new support. I will give you another more up to date example: Sonos a music system. Sonos has an app on your handy which you can use to start playing it. But it also has a button to do the same. Yeah the app is new technology but you are just slower on it then pressing the old school button. People would go so far to buy a 99$ remote switch because it is still easier then getting your telephone open the app and press play.

No Quality First Software cant do that.

Can't find anything about the possibility of a second gateway for a corridor .