Jump to content

NightJanitor

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    1,574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    NightJanitor got a reaction from wavicle in My complaint to the SEC   
    Well, you'll get no argument from me that if the SEC had been around before people began trading beads, coral, stones - they'd have tried to regulate those as 'securities'.  ("Unga's stone is only good if Unga continue living, but if we hit Unga on head, Unga stone no longer good!  So, Unga's stone is security;  now we hit you with stone, too!")
     
    Bigger picture, I think it's necessary to help them figure out, present day, who is a threat to economic/financial stability and who could actually be very, very helpful.
  2. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from peanut56 in xrp vs usd - currency war   
    One way to look at where things are, right now, bigger picture, is that we're in a "hobbyists and lobbyists" stage.  Both are incented purely by short-term profit.  Nobody (except maybe a wise man or two) is thinking about this properly, in the context of Triffin - and how to solve for that, long-term, without creating a great displacement / starting a war.  (Some don't care, others don't see, and a few really nasty bastards seem to be rooting for it!)
    The current solutions that I've seen popularly proposed are of the "gold or sdr" variety...  Those proposals have been around for a long time and nobody can agree on either - thusly, some sort of synthetic and gradual/long-term solution is probably best.
    The old-school natsec/defense hawks seem, largely, to be in the gold camp - which is why the (overly) simplified "BTC has a fixed supply!" one-dimensional argument is the resonant one, with them... for now.  Of course, many of them are waking up to the fact that BTC is the first "popular" iteration of this new tech - and that it's old, now - slow, also - and that it's dependent upon miners who are in China, which, for an old-school natsec/defense hawk type should be (I can't resist the pun) a "huge ******* red flag"...  (They'll consider just ramping up our own, domestic PoW empire network - but the Chinese - and others - will kill us on electricity costs - and labor costs to fund extracting the fuel for that electricity - and we'd be right back where we started, except maybe worse off, after grossly mis-allocating capital to try to compete in and transfer over to a system that, even if we switch places w/China and dominate it, we all still lose - as that turns US into USSR in the 1980's and we just wind up going broke - not even mentioning other bad scenarios.)
    Once those guys figure that out - and maybe they already have, but we'll see - they'll begin to look for alternatives that do not introduce those risks (and that actually work).
    That's sort of where we're at, I think...
    (I object strenuously to the title of the thread "xrp vs usd" - I don't see it that way, at all - but at least so far as the "currency war" part, that's the proper call.)
     
     
  3. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from Cambridge in xrp vs usd - currency war   
    There's some truth there!  Without the contemporaneous news that FinCEN was proposing (potentially rushed, but I see why) new "wallet" rules, combined with some other things (like HFCAA and the EO's re: Chinese telco's/etc), it'd be very easy to just go "these guys are morons;  they're just lashing out" - but within the mosaic, perfect sense.
    Whatever moves, behind the scenes, that are causing the "privacy" coins to be delisted here and there also add some further datapoints that support such interpretations...  (I'm not a "managed decline" kind of guy, nor do I think the US has to become a totalitarian state in order to take one on, just so ya know.)
    (like The Man says... "We'll see!")
  4. Thanks
    NightJanitor got a reaction from Gambaard in xrp vs usd - currency war   
    One way to look at where things are, right now, bigger picture, is that we're in a "hobbyists and lobbyists" stage.  Both are incented purely by short-term profit.  Nobody (except maybe a wise man or two) is thinking about this properly, in the context of Triffin - and how to solve for that, long-term, without creating a great displacement / starting a war.  (Some don't care, others don't see, and a few really nasty bastards seem to be rooting for it!)
    The current solutions that I've seen popularly proposed are of the "gold or sdr" variety...  Those proposals have been around for a long time and nobody can agree on either - thusly, some sort of synthetic and gradual/long-term solution is probably best.
    The old-school natsec/defense hawks seem, largely, to be in the gold camp - which is why the (overly) simplified "BTC has a fixed supply!" one-dimensional argument is the resonant one, with them... for now.  Of course, many of them are waking up to the fact that BTC is the first "popular" iteration of this new tech - and that it's old, now - slow, also - and that it's dependent upon miners who are in China, which, for an old-school natsec/defense hawk type should be (I can't resist the pun) a "huge ******* red flag"...  (They'll consider just ramping up our own, domestic PoW empire network - but the Chinese - and others - will kill us on electricity costs - and labor costs to fund extracting the fuel for that electricity - and we'd be right back where we started, except maybe worse off, after grossly mis-allocating capital to try to compete in and transfer over to a system that, even if we switch places w/China and dominate it, we all still lose - as that turns US into USSR in the 1980's and we just wind up going broke - not even mentioning other bad scenarios.)
    Once those guys figure that out - and maybe they already have, but we'll see - they'll begin to look for alternatives that do not introduce those risks (and that actually work).
    That's sort of where we're at, I think...
    (I object strenuously to the title of the thread "xrp vs usd" - I don't see it that way, at all - but at least so far as the "currency war" part, that's the proper call.)
     
     
  5. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from SquaryBone in xrp vs usd - currency war   
    One way to look at where things are, right now, bigger picture, is that we're in a "hobbyists and lobbyists" stage.  Both are incented purely by short-term profit.  Nobody (except maybe a wise man or two) is thinking about this properly, in the context of Triffin - and how to solve for that, long-term, without creating a great displacement / starting a war.  (Some don't care, others don't see, and a few really nasty bastards seem to be rooting for it!)
    The current solutions that I've seen popularly proposed are of the "gold or sdr" variety...  Those proposals have been around for a long time and nobody can agree on either - thusly, some sort of synthetic and gradual/long-term solution is probably best.
    The old-school natsec/defense hawks seem, largely, to be in the gold camp - which is why the (overly) simplified "BTC has a fixed supply!" one-dimensional argument is the resonant one, with them... for now.  Of course, many of them are waking up to the fact that BTC is the first "popular" iteration of this new tech - and that it's old, now - slow, also - and that it's dependent upon miners who are in China, which, for an old-school natsec/defense hawk type should be (I can't resist the pun) a "huge ******* red flag"...  (They'll consider just ramping up our own, domestic PoW empire network - but the Chinese - and others - will kill us on electricity costs - and labor costs to fund extracting the fuel for that electricity - and we'd be right back where we started, except maybe worse off, after grossly mis-allocating capital to try to compete in and transfer over to a system that, even if we switch places w/China and dominate it, we all still lose - as that turns US into USSR in the 1980's and we just wind up going broke - not even mentioning other bad scenarios.)
    Once those guys figure that out - and maybe they already have, but we'll see - they'll begin to look for alternatives that do not introduce those risks (and that actually work).
    That's sort of where we're at, I think...
    (I object strenuously to the title of the thread "xrp vs usd" - I don't see it that way, at all - but at least so far as the "currency war" part, that's the proper call.)
     
     
  6. Haha
    NightJanitor got a reaction from LetHerRip in SEC claims XRPChat is Ripple's site   
    I got the impression, from reading it, that the staff attorneys weren't exactly "thrilled" about having to (re-)write it up, so, uh, it's maybe not the "best"...
    (I did enjoy noticing that a few of the "items" were straight out of the bitcoin maxi talking point book(s), complete with some btc maxi technical biases.)
  7. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from Flintstone in fork,burn or split?   
    I still like the sound of "The Ripple Test" - let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we?
     
     
  8. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from patriot420 in Charting the course of XRP   
    Wouldn't you love to be able to tap a button and send a prop bet offer to some of these guys?
  9. Haha
    NightJanitor got a reaction from Cambridge in Charting the course of XRP   
    Wouldn't you love to be able to tap a button and send a prop bet offer to some of these guys?
  10. Haha
    NightJanitor got a reaction from retep in Charting the course of XRP   
    Wouldn't you love to be able to tap a button and send a prop bet offer to some of these guys?
  11. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from Neurotoxin in My complaint to the SEC   
    The temptation to spend other people's money is great.  I try to resist it - that makes it super easy for me to tell other people to **** off when they give me "suggestions."
    That's more than a catty statement;  there's some deep wisdom there, if you think about it, and it's wisdom that carries over into a variety of fields, maybe even all of 'em.
    That said, if solving for "distribution" is really someone's problem, I can probably help out...
    It requires deep focus, though.  It also requires them having to specifically ask for that help.  These are not children who need care;  they're adults who have property rights.
    We used to have this cool thing in this country called the Rule of Law that functioned fairly well to protect those, and all of our other, rights - but it seems a bit sleepy, now...
    One of the things that I think is responsible, to some extent, for making capital allocation so inefficient in the last 20 years or so is this ruinous idea that judgment and talent and skill are no longer to be considered as qualifiers either for those who make bets or those upon whom they're placed - that sort of "anyone can do it " / "book-that-idiots-buy-in-the-airport" simplified system of "make a bunch of bad bets, hope one pays off."  (You wind up with 10,000 people putting "VC" in their twitter profile.)  Diversification has its downsides, when done at early stages by people who do not suffer at all if nine fail and one succeeds, and who don't seem to get any better at it over time (with zero incentive to do so, why would they?)...  That's how you wind up with governance that looks like California, at the moment - let's just take more OPM and spread it around and hope the people it's being taken from and the people it's being given to don't both figure out it's not working and then turn on the idiot middleman in the Governor's mansion?
    That's not good.  There are also a variety of names for that type of governance, historically.  ("Incompetent" is just one - there are many that are more accurate/descriptive...)
    (One of the tricks of the incompetent, in the later stages, is to make a great variety of mechanisms by which to outsource their own power to others...)
    (Usually, this is done by letting special interests divide themselves up and compete for the spoils of taxation - keeps 'em busy and dissipates "blame.")
    (Also "diversifies" the revenue streams of the guy in the Governor's mansion - while, at the same time, expanding his power through network effects...)
    Anyway, that tangent aside:
    I'm for keeping the focus where it belongs, in this case, which is on SEC.  If they want to share their reasoning for going after Ripple (many are presuming it's because Ripple holds "too much" XRP - that would certainly be specious reasoning/precedent for an enforcement action in any other case, whether commodity, security, any-thing-else-of-value - look out, everyone the government decides has "too much!"), and dissipate the blame and/or shed light on other motives they may have, they'd best do it...
    Otherwise, I think they're in for a much bigger fight than they thought.  Like, Mike Tyson suddenly appears and Don King starts rhyming up ways to sell tickets to the show!
    (Now, I have some sympathy for SEC - I think I understand, partially, some of the pressures that they're under - FinCEN, as well - and I sympathize with them, as I think their goals are largely laudable, especially in service to the people of the nation, as that might relate to its continuing existence in the form in which that nation began...)
    But... the whole "you've got too much money" thing... uh, if that's "the case", then I'm not sure whose interests are served by that, but I know that it's not America's best.
    All for now.
     
  12. Haha
    NightJanitor got a reaction from Zerpiet in Binance Delist XRP! Is the Price Heading Towards Its All-Time-Low?   
    Heh... been doing that for years... bought a book once just because I'd come up with so many time-saving, bullshit-avoiding, reading-tricks over the years that the name appealed to me!  It was called, I think, "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper."  (Most of it turned out to be rather bullshit, as well - but there were a couple of nuggets.)
  13. Thanks
    NightJanitor got a reaction from thinlyspread in Help understanding Avalanche (relates to Flare Networks/Finance & Spark etc)   
    Let me see if I can put avalanche in simple terms... or maybe a visual metaphor?
    You ever sit at a diner, bored out of your min(e)d, pouring out the salt into piles?  It's kind of like that.  Except you're doing it (over and over again) with a really precise stopwatch - and a(n x-ray?) camera(s) - and when the grain hits that causes the little pile to collapse, you note the time and take a picture of the pile... (or maybe just before/after collapse - and then you can scale that up into multiple piles and do some tricks.)  (Ok, fine, maybe you need to have the cameras running the whole time - maybe - or maybe not - and you've got to define some sort of threshold for "collapse" - but it's a metaphor!)
    [All those little grains hitting ("transactions") shift the structure of the entire pile of crystals.]
    It's different from XRPL's consensus in that it offers more dimensions / degrees of freedom...
    (Granularity?  Hah!)
    I'm rusty... but that's one way to think about it...  Most people I've run into seem to think about it in synaptic potential terms, but those are the same guys who tend to say "people" are just computers (that whole "neuroscience informs AI - and then ******* AI starts to inform neuroscience" thing - and then those "people" forget that it's a METAPHOR) - ergo, I don't pay much attention to those guys on most stuff, but, then...
    Maybe I'm just salty.
  14. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from DannyRipple in My complaint to the SEC   
    The temptation to spend other people's money is great.  I try to resist it - that makes it super easy for me to tell other people to **** off when they give me "suggestions."
    That's more than a catty statement;  there's some deep wisdom there, if you think about it, and it's wisdom that carries over into a variety of fields, maybe even all of 'em.
    That said, if solving for "distribution" is really someone's problem, I can probably help out...
    It requires deep focus, though.  It also requires them having to specifically ask for that help.  These are not children who need care;  they're adults who have property rights.
    We used to have this cool thing in this country called the Rule of Law that functioned fairly well to protect those, and all of our other, rights - but it seems a bit sleepy, now...
    One of the things that I think is responsible, to some extent, for making capital allocation so inefficient in the last 20 years or so is this ruinous idea that judgment and talent and skill are no longer to be considered as qualifiers either for those who make bets or those upon whom they're placed - that sort of "anyone can do it " / "book-that-idiots-buy-in-the-airport" simplified system of "make a bunch of bad bets, hope one pays off."  (You wind up with 10,000 people putting "VC" in their twitter profile.)  Diversification has its downsides, when done at early stages by people who do not suffer at all if nine fail and one succeeds, and who don't seem to get any better at it over time (with zero incentive to do so, why would they?)...  That's how you wind up with governance that looks like California, at the moment - let's just take more OPM and spread it around and hope the people it's being taken from and the people it's being given to don't both figure out it's not working and then turn on the idiot middleman in the Governor's mansion?
    That's not good.  There are also a variety of names for that type of governance, historically.  ("Incompetent" is just one - there are many that are more accurate/descriptive...)
    (One of the tricks of the incompetent, in the later stages, is to make a great variety of mechanisms by which to outsource their own power to others...)
    (Usually, this is done by letting special interests divide themselves up and compete for the spoils of taxation - keeps 'em busy and dissipates "blame.")
    (Also "diversifies" the revenue streams of the guy in the Governor's mansion - while, at the same time, expanding his power through network effects...)
    Anyway, that tangent aside:
    I'm for keeping the focus where it belongs, in this case, which is on SEC.  If they want to share their reasoning for going after Ripple (many are presuming it's because Ripple holds "too much" XRP - that would certainly be specious reasoning/precedent for an enforcement action in any other case, whether commodity, security, any-thing-else-of-value - look out, everyone the government decides has "too much!"), and dissipate the blame and/or shed light on other motives they may have, they'd best do it...
    Otherwise, I think they're in for a much bigger fight than they thought.  Like, Mike Tyson suddenly appears and Don King starts rhyming up ways to sell tickets to the show!
    (Now, I have some sympathy for SEC - I think I understand, partially, some of the pressures that they're under - FinCEN, as well - and I sympathize with them, as I think their goals are largely laudable, especially in service to the people of the nation, as that might relate to its continuing existence in the form in which that nation began...)
    But... the whole "you've got too much money" thing... uh, if that's "the case", then I'm not sure whose interests are served by that, but I know that it's not America's best.
    All for now.
     
  15. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from VanGogh in Uphold responds about xrp.   
    QFT!

  16. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from pje in Fork   
    Made a huge mistake burning all that XLM.
    (Other mistakes largely due to impatience.)
  17. Like
    NightJanitor reacted to VanGogh in Uphold responds about xrp.   
    Full series of tweets by the CEO of Uphold:
    (1/8) Uphold hopes that due process resolution to the SEC/Ripple dispute can both set the goalposts for token offerings going forward, as well as clear the fogbank of uncertainty that now presumably settles over the Stellars and Filecoins of the world, if not ETH itself.
    (2/8) The SEC is a lion in the service of protecting consumers and stopping bad actors, but the Ripple Complaint presents various conundrums: What if punishing the actions of a couple of parties not only directly harms XRP holders...
    (3/8) (most of whom probably assumed tacit approval after seven years of inaction), but also threatens to harm participants in similar projects. as well as virtually assure that the US will not be home to Silicon Valley II, by rights - the US's to own.
    (3/8) (most of whom probably assumed tacit approval after seven years of inaction), but also threatens to harm participants in similar projects. as well as virtually assure that the US will not be home to Silicon Valley II, by rights - the US's to own.
    (4/8) Can something be born a security and metamorphosize into something else? How is" invoking billion dollar losses for innocent third parties", as an ex Comissioner of the SEC recently put it, in the interest of protecting consumers?
    (5/8) We work in the most exciting industry of our day. This truly is the second coming of the Internet. As with all human activity, there are the well intentioned, the criminal and the crazy. But, most importantly, there are the innovators. The agents of all human progress.
    (6/8) Perhaps the innovator in question poked the lion and got swatted. Now we have to see whether the lion gets up and finishes the job, or returns its attention to more likely (and deserving) next meals. It's this next action that holds the promise of providing...
    (7/8) the clarity we're all hoping for. Meanwhile, we'll tiptoe in the fog, listening to the party happening in the panda enclosure, and the amusingly bitchy schadenfreude of some of our colleagues.
    (8/8) Uphold will continue to list XRP until and unless the Complaint is adjudicated against Ripple - specifically citing that XRP is, today, a security, or trading volume dissipates to a point where we can no longer support.
  18. Haha
    NightJanitor got a reaction from CountZerpula in MGI, ODL, Bitso and a theory about the price   
  19. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from VanGogh in First hearing is in the February ?!   
    Yeah, I dunno about that.  If you think you may need an IOV warchest, you might.
    (And the way US crypto regulation is starting to turn out, I think they were right.)
    I didn't see BG or CL "take the money and run";  I see them standing up to fight...
    (One of us may need new glasses, but I see vision - and you seem near-sighted.)
    You think about it...
     
    ("Disruption must often precede construction, but most men stop at the former.")
  20. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from aavkk in MoneyGram Distances itself from Ripple   
    Actually, WrathofKahneman (smart guy, usually right - though I disagree with him on that very minor point) is the one who introduced discussion of "treasury management" (or batching/netting) vs "direct" payments, into this thread - putting a couple of puzzle pieces together that I don't think fit, or that I don't think fit the way he thinks they do (as "treasury management" can start out big and get smaller, over time (with increased granularity / just-in-time-delivery), but could still be called "treasury management").
    That minor tangent/quibble aside...
    Here's how I read the press release:
    1) MGI states that it DOES use Ripple's ODL for FX ("purchase or sale of four currencies") (and that it still maintains its traditional rail, reassuring its shareholders of business continuity - ie, "we have fallback capabilities if shit happens" - standard fare)
    2) MGI states that it DOES NOT transfer "consumer funds" via rail (sounds weird to the layman, but "we don't put consumer funds at risk while in travel" goes back to the days of Wells Fargo horse-drawn carriages / stagecoaches assuming custody/liability of any funds in transit - thusly the guys "riding shotgun" to protect the company's funds, which at that moment are not the customer's, thusly the word "direct" in the phrase "direct transfers of consumer funds."  What they legally do, I believe, is transfer their own funds, for the ultimate benefit of customer(s), which is rather "indirect" - but it's the same way that, say, a credit/debit card works, as those are networked, also.  I guess they assume that their shareholders, to whom they're writing this release, know that their business is taking some amount of funds at Point A and delivering some amount of funds at Point B - and the value that they add is all of the intricate stuff they have to do to make that happen, especially when there's a currency conversion or cross-border transaction - or both - involved... (Which anyone who owns their shares or is familiar with their business ought to know, but maybe you should write to their IR department and tell them "hey, please dumb this shit down and stop communicating to your shareholders like they have any clue what your business does - your real target audience for these corporate press releases is not your shareholders or your industry, it's actually ******** on twitter who have adopted bitcoin as their lord and savior and are nervous that you might be achieving some sort of cost savings, now or in the future, by restructuring the way that you handle FX without having to use their precious bitcoin, like a number of others have done with ODL or XRP or both!)
    3) MGI states that it is NOT party to SEC action.
    Those are the three major themes that I saw in the release, though that's not legal or financial advice, just "applied reading comprehension."
    (All quotes in italics are mine, not those of MGI, but if the guy who writes MGI press releases reads this, he just wishes he could say all that!)
    (As for questions about ODL volume, there are hypotheses around the observed volumes that some people track, and how they track them - and whether they're observing the right things - or if they even can - and/or how much ODL volume they may be capturing in their observations - and that's all 3rd party stuff that some people here post)
    Thus endeth the lesson.
  21. Like
    NightJanitor reacted to Pablo in BREAKING: New Pro-Crypto SEC Chairman Appointed   
    I think the general consensus amongst the lawyers is that the endgame for the SEC is to entrench some precedents regarding crypto assets, cementing the decisions in Kik and Telegram. These give the SEC increased leverage in future actions against crypto projects as even fewer projects will dare to litigate and go straight to settlement. More cost effective for the SEC and taxpayer. Not so great for the industry.
    A win against Ripple will open the floodgates on the crypto industry and few will be safe. Even if the SEC decides not to prosecute a particular project (say the Ethereum Foundation), these judgements can be used in civil/class actions. So yes, it makes the US very unattractive for crypto investment.
    If the SEC loses, that throws a spanner in the works. It does not mean that ICOs can't be securities, only that XRP in its specific circumstances is not a security. That's not the clarity we need. However the SEC will think twice next time and it also increases the odds that ICOs will push back. One upside for us is that if the SEC loses this case, we can be pretty sure the class action against Ripple is bascially dead. That may be one other reason for Ripple to fight the SEC. They kill 2 birds with one stone.
    What this space needs is exactly what Ripple and the entire industry has been begging for: regulatory clarity. That means Federal lawmakers sitting down and developing a consistent legal and regulatory framework across multiple agencies and fields (contract law, banking, securities etc).
    One thing is for certain: these cases by the SEC achieve none of that. And even Ripple's most outspoken critics agree.
  22. Thanks
    NightJanitor reacted to r0bertz in XRP being classified as a security would change how stock is supposed to work   
    Whatever the subclass XRP will be in, the whole industry needs to change to make it happen. Because there has never been such a security that when you sell it on the ledger (XRPL), your holding decreases more than the amount being sold.
  23. Like
    NightJanitor reacted to RobertHarpool in How to Solve the Crisis?   
    The stamp analogy is to present a simple comparison of XRP to a commonly known product in terms of "centralization", purpose, currency and burn. Every analogy breaks down when you get too far away from its purpose. 
     
    Here is a very important matter of distinction from your comments: Ripple (employees) often stated that XRP would increase in value as a result of increased network adoption....not the company's activities. 
    It was widely understood that network adoption would be the result of superior protocol. And its superiority created an almost palpable feeling of manifest destiny. No one who did their due diligence thought owning XRP was equivalent to having shares in OC/RL/Ripple. Ripple's periodic hand-holding or consultation wasn't really needed by any party wanting to set itself up on the network. It really ain't that difficult. Many of the How-Tos were already documented and published quite clearly to that end.  
    Banks and FIs were to become gateways, as were loyalty programs, commodities, etc. Each zipping their value about interchangeably. 
    The problem was, few could ever adopt the network due to lack of regulatory clarity of XRP. There was zero way U.S. FIs could budge from that position regardless of if or how much Ripple may try to cajole them. 
    If the SEC thinks people bought XRP because of expectations of Ripple's efforts, then they don't understand the quality, abilities or functioning of the protocol itself. This seemingly willful ignorance on their behalf was clear to me as I read the complaint. Did you notice there is little to no discussion of the network specs, abilities or inner workings?  It's as if it were written by BTC maximalists rather than objective fact-finders.  
    The invisible hand of enhanced efficiencies were to increase network adoption. Not Ripple's activities. Ripple has just been the biggest (but not only) parasite of the protocol's promise. 
    Shame on the SEC for their mischaracterization and/or sloppy investigation. Doubly so if they're being useful idiots to the Bitcoin bozos.  
     
    (BTW, FWIW, in early crypto, centralization had nothing to do with who had the most of a coin, but whether it was open or closed source. Ripple caught a lot of heat until it went open source in Sept of 14(?). It took another year of arguing with Bitcoiners to get them to accept RXTP was open, even though it was clearly available on Github. Then the BTCers moved the goal posts. "Centralization" was now about who controlled transaction processing. Again Ripple caught a lot of cr@p for providing the only processing nodes of the network ... until the network became more decentralized than BTC a short while ago. Then the definition magically changed to who had the most of a coin!! ) 
     
     
  24. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from r0bertz in XRP being classified as a security would change how stock is supposed to work   
    I've never wanted an "Aha!" button, before!  Very, very clever...  Thank you...
    ETA link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Path_independence
    Did anyone see anything in the manual about how the force field works?
    The line is "I watch the ripples change their size..." - and that is true - BUT!
    I always liked it the way I heard it:  "I watch the ripples change their signs..."
    Have to think about that... but it seems like there might be some utility in it.
    (a small amount of coffee later...)
    and:  https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/46f5e8f0-1daa-40f0-8f1c-207829546f62
    The SEC is already running a validator node... maybe they should propose?!
    That'd be some crazy shit!  It's certainly fascinating to consider, though!   
  25. Like
    NightJanitor got a reaction from r0bertz in Fork   
    Ripple *publishes* a recommended UNL.  So do a variety of other entities.  Anyone running a validator can use that UNL, modify that UNL, or totally ignore that UNL.
    I will not take the bait and engage in a "technical" discussion of consensus with you, since you used the term "ODL validator" in your previous post.  There is no such "imaginary creation" as an "ODL validator" - there are only XRPL validators, each free to use (or not) any UNL they so desire.  Personally, I always routed transactions (hilarious, I think) through the XRPL validator node that's run for years by... wait for it... the SEC.  So, that'll be a fun one for them to try to explain, if it comes to that...
    Wouldn't it be funny if their own validator participated in consensus and stamped a validation on every single XRP ledger since like 2018 or so? 
    Last I knew, they did it for BTC and ETH, too... They subcontracted it out - you know, for "surveillance purposes" - but their RFQ was made public.
×
×
  • 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.