Jump to content


Silver Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. That's a philosophical question. From a technical point of view it's the one with more validators. If you personally don't agree with the majority of validators and you think the remaining 20% are the good ones, then you can hope for a fork and support the 20%. And BTW the remaining 20% won't have more activity nor more users because the ledger will update only following the 80% rules.
  2. Yeah, probably that depends on the rules (code) of the 20%. They can reject transactions and stop going forward.
  3. If they have 80+ they can do whatever they want, even if other nodes have history. Because the 80+ will agree on "set balance" (you can put whatever transaction here) and they will apply the transaction. The other nodes can only agree on that.
  4. Yeah I agree totally. The rest of validators won't make progress in ledgers, while the 80% of validators will proceed with their rules. I don't know if we can talk about a fork, because the 80% are actually the majority, so that network IS the main network .
  5. Back to topic: IF a misterious entity can control 80%+ of all validators in the UNL, then they can basically do whatever they want with the network. They can completely change codebase and validate any transaction. So they can double spend, create new XRP, ban someone from the network, change the rules of XRPL. But the remaining validators (the "good" ones) can choose to basically fork at a specific ledger and start a new ledger from there (not an easy task ).
  6. tulo

    Change secret key

    Yeah me too.
  7. I think you all are aware of the fees applied by exchanges and in XRPL. But probably not all of you are aware of the (non trivial) difference when applying fees in the base or in the counter currency. Let's start with an example: I have 1000 USD and I want to spend all of them to buy some BTC. So the pair is BTC:USD. We consider BTC the base currency and USD the counter currency. In the market there are two offers: Price: 1000. Volume: 0.6 Price 900. Volume: 0.5 Now the exchange applies a fee of 10% (exaggerated to make it easier). Two different exchanges apply the fees in the input currency (base currency, BTC in this case) and in the output currency (counter currency, USD in this case). Let's check the two scenarios: IN FEES In this case I put 1000 USD in and because of the fee I'm left with 900 USD. I buy 0.6 BTC from the first offer paying 600 USD and 0.33333 BTC from the second offer paying 300 USD. Results: My BTC balance: 0.9333 BTC Liquidity left: 0.167 OUT FEES In this case I use 600 USD to buy 0.6 BTC, but I'm left with 0.54 BTC because of fees. Then I use 400 USD to buy 0.444 BTC, but I'm left with 0.4 BTC because of fees. Results: My BTC balance: 0.94 BTC Liquidity left: 0.056 As you can see even if the fees were the same amount, the two had a drastical impact of the outcome. In the first case I ended up with less BTC than the second case and more liquidity was left in the market. In the second case I end up with more BTC and the liquidity left is much less. Did you ever think about this?
  8. tulo

    Execute multiple transactions atomically

    It is not possible right now, but there are plans to implement it. No ETA. Stellar already implemented this. (I wrote this to put some pressure in case Ripple's devs are reading )
  9. tulo

    Quiankun gateway dying?

    The problem as always is regulation. Because it is not difficult to make an automatic Crypto:IOUs gateway.
  10. tulo

    Quiankun gateway dying?

    More gateways dying...less and less volumes on XRPL. I'm becoming more and more pro lightweight version of XRPL, where IOUs are removed.
  11. Anyone from china can tell us what is going on with Quiankun gateway (rPT74sUcTBTQhkHVD54WGncoqXEAMYbmH7). Are they dying or are they closing? Or do they only have liquidity issues?
  12. tulo

    really low on-ledger activity

    The build in decentralized market is not well publicized. Trading IOUs is risky because of insolvencies. The API is a continuous mess. The exchanges built on it (gatehub) didn't do a good job. I see the motivation for the reduced volume. But I think there is still potential, when used with smart contracts.
  13. I told you that I eploited it @Eik I also sent a report to Ripple.
  14. It's a matter of % of succes, not influence applied transactions. With zero work you can have 50% chance of applying your transaction before another actor that submitted the transaction before you. For me that's bad.