Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Wietse in Paper wallet concerns... Octillion no longer works, what is Bithomp disappears too?   
    Thanks for the mention @Arrowfletch  
    @Elkero I'm from XRPL Labs, the developers of XUMM (wallet + platform). Like @Arrowfletchpointed out we have the support of RIpple, but we're an independent company from The Netherlands, building full time with our small team of 9 people on the XRP Leger. We're doing that since 2017~2018 and we intend to do it for many many years. More info: https://xrpl-labs.com, http://xumm.app and https://support.xumm.app/hc (Support & FAQs).
    XUMM is non custodial and allows you to import your existing keys and accounts. 
  2. Like
    Arrowfletch got a reaction from Flintstone in Paper wallet concerns... Octillion no longer works, what is Bithomp disappears too?   
    Minor point but I believe XUMM is supported by Ripple through grants only, the programing is XRPL labs . I think Mr @Wietse can provide final clarification.  
  3. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Wietse in Don't Forget to Claim Your Spark from Flare!!!   
    Haha, I guess that would make me Mark Zuckerberg? Help! Haha. I understand and somewhat like tha analogy, but the difference is that in case of Facebook the creator of the app is also the company having custody over your data. In our case it's a little bit different: we offer the app, but we have no user data whatsoever, we also cannot recover an account for users. The data is on the XRPL, the key is in possession of the user (or at least: it should be). We're just the "gateway", the user interface between the key owned by the user and the features & data on the XRPL. 
    (For this reason we recently updated our docs at support.xumm.app, changing "XUMM account" into "XRPL account managed with XUMM")
  4. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to RobertHarpool in Uphold help   
    @SeriouslyStressed1 ... it's all good ... no worries ... 
    I've had it happen with them numerous times. They get spooked when larger amounts are being tossed about. You may actually find comfort in that. 
    I've copied the contents of one of their emails below. You should get it soon. 
    I swear I've answered these a couple times now ...but, whatever. There was one exchange ... maybe Uphold? maybe Bitstamp ... that made me show bank transaction records leading to my XRP purchases in 2013! 
    AML/KYC ... they're just being safe. 
    Dear Robert
    Thanks for your deposit, which we’ve successfully received. You can trade your funds freely and continue to deposit, but we need to gather some more information before you can withdraw or send funds to other people. It’s a compliance thing.
    We’re anxious to minimize any disruption, so please let us have the following as soon as possible:
    Employer Name and Occupation:
    If self employed, state type of employment
    If retired or unemployed, state "retired" or "unemployed" and previous occupation
    Expected annual income:
    Source of funds:
    If coming from a Bank - Bank statement
    If coming from your own wallet
    Name of the custodian of the wallet
    Screenshot of the transaction
    If coming from another person’s wallet
    Name of the funding source
    Reason for transaction
    Please reply to this email with the above so that you don’t have problems when withdrawing or sending funds later on.
    The information we collect will clear your account for similar deposits for one year.
    Team Uphold
  5. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to RobertHarpool in Uphold help   
    Expect the review to be done within hours of sufficiently answering their questions. I think my last review was about 30 minutes. But my first one was over 2 hours. 
    Also note that Uphold limits withdraws to your bank account to $10K per day. So plan accordingly. 
    Though they say the bank transfer will take 3 to 5 business days, mine have all cleared to my bank within 24 hours. 
    Edited: corrected spelling mistake
  6. Sad
    Arrowfletch reacted to Zedy44 in Epic Pennant on BTC Chart   
    Watched this.  I am completely onboard with his analysis of the "perfect storm" coming between US / Europe economies coming into the holiday season.  Covid is absolutely rampant in the US right now and 100% we will have to have a nationwide lockdown after the holidays are over.  Look at what is going on in the NFL right now they are still trying to play football games with no quarterbacks (Denver) and 18+ starting players on a covid list (Baltimore).  People don't care in America and we will pay the price unfortunately.  So I can see a devastating drop in Q4/Q1 equities market in the US.  The "big" one everyone keeps calling for is knocking on the door.
    But this wipes out the common retailer and I think it could take digital assets too.  The money has to go somewhere, but I don't think it will flow out of equities and into Bitcoin so easily.  Those Paypal/Square users are more likely to be lining up for food distributions than to buy more BTC when equities (and jobs) take a nose dive when reality slaps America in the face.  Of course when the stimulus does eventually come that will be the turn around for everything.  Inflation...my god the inflation is going to be brutal I think.
  7. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to jargoman in Can not get valid exchange rate of xrp in testnet   
    I looked up BDT/rsGoiVZwun2fNzTivHsz4vSWtZ6DNuyN1z on testnet. No account even holds BDT. And presumably no one has offers to buy or sell BDT

    send BDT to an account and place offers to sell BDT from that account and the exchange rate will be the best offer
  8. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to nikb in What would happen if Ripple turned off their validators for a week   
    A published UNL reflects the publisher's recommendations, based on whatever criteria the publisher has and information available to him or her. Such judgements represent a given moment in time and have a shelf-life. They shouldn't be "perpetual."
    It would speak volumes if nobody cares enough if no UNL were published to actually go and publish their own. Inertia is a horrible thing. It is, in fact, deleterious to things that are open to anyone but belong to nobody. Codifying inertia would be tantamount to a death knell, in my opinion. 
    Please don't feel this way: it's great that people and groups have earned your trust, but don't leave it at that. Expand your knowledge and ask yourself whether it makes sense for you to simply trust others or for you to actually seek to minimize your reliance upon others, even those you deem trustworthy.
    The XRP Ledger doesn't need cheerleaders. It needs fervent, passionate and educated advocates who are willing to point out the issues where improvement is not only possible but, indeed, imperative and who will, if needed, step up and do what's needed instead of waiting for someone else to.

  9. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to mDuo13 in What would happen if Ripple turned off their validators for a week   
    @BillyOckham's analysis is correct:
    80%—the quorum requirement—is a threshold for consensus defined in the code. The developers chose the number 80% based on the best understanding of the nature of the problem and the overall algorithm's behavior in various theoretical and tested circumstances, and (I believe) because 80% is an easy number for humans to understand.
    The XRP Ledger's protocol is designed so that each server operator can choose their server's UNL based on their own ideas/rules/parameters. It was always known that servers that have very different lists from each other would likely diverge, but research efforts showed (disappointingly) that anything short of about 90% overlap was not totally fork-safe if the internet connection between the servers suffers very specific types of delays¹. Thus a recommended UNL, such as the one Ripple publishes (and the equivalent one Coil publishes) defines a set of validators everyone can use; everyone who uses the same (or similar enough) list is guaranteed not to fork from one another.
    As of today, Ripple's list has 38 validators, 6 of which are run by Ripple. Even if all six of Ripple's validators turned off, the rest of the network could make forward progress since 32/38 is still over 80%, but it would be working with a thinner margin of error. It would only take a couple validators disagreeing or turning off to cause an outage. To resolve this, XRP Ledger users would need to reconfigure their UNLs, possibly by using a new list from a different publisher such as Coil.
    One area of consensus tech that is progressing is the idea of a "negative UNL". A preliminary implementation of this feature is in v1.6.0 and we are actively testing it on the Devnet right now. With negative UNL, validators who are still online can add a note to a ledger saying, "Hey, Ripple Validator 5 seems to be offline," and if a consensus of them agree, they can temporarily adjust the quorum requirement down so that the validators who are offline don't count towards the total number of validators (unless they come back online and vote). So if Ripple Validator 5 is on the negative UNL, the quourum requirement becomes "80% of 37 validators not including Ripple Validator 5, or 80% of 38 validators including Ripple Validator 5."  And if it does come back online, then a consensus can remove it from the negative UNL.
    If the Negative UNL system were in place on Mainnet, then the scenario where Ripple disables 6 validators could go a lot smoother: pretty quickly, the remaining validators could say, "Hey, all six of these are offline" and as long as that remains the case, the quorum would be 26 of 32 (still 80%) instead of 38 total validators.
    A bigger problem would be if Ripple were to stop signing new recommended UNLs. Each one has a built-in expiration date, so if Ripple just let the latest one expire, servers that use Ripple's list would have an outage until their operators reconfigured their UNLs. If there's no obvious alternative or backup, this could be an extended outage during which the XRP Ledger community would have to figure out which validators to put on their lists now or who should sign the lists from now on.
    ¹ The original Ripple whitepaper relied on the assumption that all messages from any given server would either reach all participants in a timely fashion, or would not reach any of them in a timely fashion; under those constraints, something like 60% overlap was sufficient to prevent forking. However, the standard in consensus research is to assume that some malicious actor could fully manipulate all network messages to arriving with arbitrary delays to specific participants only. Under these more restrictive network conditions, it's possible for byzantine validator(s) to issue multiple validations of different ledger candidates of the same ledger index to different parties, while network delays prevent the parties from noticing until it's too late that the byzantine validator is sending out mutually-incompatible validation messages.
  10. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Prometheus_Rising in Any way to see if two wallets have ever transacted with one another?   
    This site may have some tools to help with your problem.
  11. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Julian_Williams in Flare networks - Spark token to XRP holders   
    apologies if this has already been posted on this thread - great read if you enjoy Galgitron's style
  12. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to jargoman in Flare networks - Spark token to XRP holders   
    Sure. I'm fairly busy working on these apps. I trade on the side so I visit this site for news and help people if I can to get my post count up and my profile in good standing. 

    Side note:
    I'm probably the only person in the world who has the XRP symbol tattooed to my face. I'm here for the long haul. Not going anywhere. I think XRP has lots of room to grow
  13. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Sukrim in The Ledger in 2020 - Size? (For a new full history validator) - Also, Debian 10 suitability question!   
    I run mine from home and need the bandwidth for work from home a bit more urgently than before. Also it would be a shitty move to use up bandwidth that other people might need on that residential connection. Having janky video connections or slow deployments because someone feels the need to spam the ledger with transactions for practically no cost isn't really that helpful, I'm not in anyone's UNL afaik anyways and the more recent history is better available than the early one. I'll start it up again though in a while, for now I try to be helpful in other ways like helping people in here or on other platforms.
  14. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to WarChest in Now the ManeyTap is connected to LINE PAY and PAYPAY using Ripple technology.   
    Not being a dick but  the word is waiving, not wavering
  15. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Julian_Williams in Now the ManeyTap is connected to LINE PAY and PAYPAY using Ripple technology.   
    thank you - we cannot improve with being corrected.
  16. Thanks
    Arrowfletch reacted to r0bertz in Trade on XRPL with scripts   
    When I made https://orderbook.xrp.ninja, I promised to release a bunch of scripts that I used to manage orders.
    I finally did it.
  17. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to tony71 in Banks are short on cash and the Feds pumping   
    So I wonder if this will be the cause for the market to crash and also Banks looking to XRP as a solution to release their funds in the nostro vostro accounts?
  18. Thanks
    Arrowfletch reacted to mDuo13 in My memo's are missing and not sure if it's my bots fault   
    Memos are part of the signed part of the transaction blob. So if you signed a transaction with a memo, the memo can't be removed without invalidating the transaction signature. Now, the Data API doesn't necessarily need to serve transactions with valid signatures (it doesn't pull things directly from the blockchain), but the Websocket API does, and it doesn't see the memos, either.... so I think this has to be an issue with your bot.
    Ultimately no protocol changes have happened as a result of the "memo takedown squad" thing because it ended up being way more bluster than substance. I think it's healthy to continue to discuss whether the protocol should adjust transaction cost requirements based on the size and complexity of the transaction, but it's become apparent that nothing urgently needs to change so we can take the time to get it right.
  19. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Professor Hantzen in OfferCreate Transactions in Ripple   
    The XRP Ledger is a decentralised exchange (perhaps the first).  An account that is "submitting an OfferCreate transaction" on the XRP Ledger (eg, to trade XRP for BTC) is analogous to an account on a centralised exchange - such as Kraken or Coinbase Pro, for example - that is "placing a trade" (eg, to buy XRP/BTC).  Typically, any account can make such an offer on either type of exchange.  You can see some of the various "trading pairs" available on the XRP Ledger's decentralised exchange by visiting http://xrpcharts.com

    The difference is mainly that on a centralised exchange, the issuer of the BTC being sold is the BTC network itself, which is then held on an accounts behalf by the exchange.  On the XRP Ledger, the BTC is an "IOU" - effectively a "promise", that can be issued by any other account on the XRP Ledger.  This is very similar to the situation with a centralised exchange and they could be seen as the same thing.  An IOU is a "promise to pay BTC", and clearly one needs to be able to trust the party who makes them this promise.  Some issuers can be considered as trustworthy as an exchange, because they may actually be a centralised exchange.  For example, the centralised exchange "Bitstamp" issues IOU's for BTC on the XRP Ledger.  Some issuers on the other hand could be considered as trustworthy as a random stranger standing on a street corner saying "give me your BTC and I'll give you a piece of paper saying I owe it to you, and I'll give your BTC back to you whenever you ask - I promise!".  That is what is meant by "every account can be a gateway".  That is, every account (ie, anyone in the world) can issue IOU's for anything on the XRP Ledger.  So you have to be sure you can trust some gateway before accepting their IOU's and handing over XRP for them.  To be perfectly clear, this means:
    DON'T just submit an OfferCreate transaction that would exchange your XRP for someone else's IOU for anything.  It may be a completely worthless IOU.

    DO research carefully the issuer of an IOU on the XRP Ledger, and examine its orderbook.  Only consider trading your XRP for an IOU if the issuer is well-known, and you feel you would trust them with your assets, and the orderbook on the XRP Ledger has a healthy number of offers amount of volume on both sides of the orderbook on the XRP Ledger, and it trades regularly, with tight spreads (not much difference in price between the bid and the ask).

    XRP is issued by the XRP Ledger itself, and requires no trust in any other party than in the XRP Ledger itself, to hold or receive.  But if you send it to another account, that account now has that XRP unless they choose to send it back to you.  The same goes for "offering" your XRP via "OfferCreate".  You will effectively be sending your XRP away to someone, and while they may give you an "IOU" (a piece of paper) in return, that may make the claim to give you some BTC at some point - it's entirely down to their trustworthiness whether they actually will.
  20. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to Yodaxrp in Has Bitrue been hacked?   
    Of course it isn't ... basic stats... In the while time seems also that one part of the supposed stolen crypto have been frozen by binance.
    Love you too tiny! #nohomo
  21. Haha
    Arrowfletch reacted to ScroogeMcDuck in Blockchain company Ripple invests in MoneyGram to power cross-border payments, shares explode higher   
    I'm surprised we haven't gone to zero on this news 
  22. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to TiffanyHayden in Jed McCaleb & XRP   
    I made a hypocrite out of myself and asked him directly. I don't think what other people do with their crypto is anybody else's business and I am disappointed in myself for not maintaining that same position with Jed.
  23. Thanks
    Arrowfletch reacted to GateHub in a few user reported their gatehub wallet been hacked and XRP sent to r9do2Ar8k64NxgLD6oJoywaxQhUS57Ck8k   
    Hey all! We are aware of the matter and are looking into it. If anyone has any information please contact us at: security@gatehub.net  
  24. Like
    Arrowfletch reacted to iLeeT in The bad habit of bailing too soon.   
    Taking 10-15% of profits in 24h is still profits nevertheless. You can't time neither the top nor the bottom of the market, especially when it's this volatile. Not everyone aims to hold 10 years and be disappointed with anything less than 40000% gains. 
    Some people simply try to make more money than traditional stock market (anything above 50-100% per year is fantastic), depends on the point of view.
  25. Thanks
    Arrowfletch reacted to ed1 in Foreshock   
    A foreshock is an earthquake that occurs before a larger seismic event (the mainshock) and is related to it in both time and space. What we are seeing today with the price increase but more importantly with the volume explosion is a foreshock of a larger move that is about to happen in XRP.
    Historically every major parabolic move in XRP has been associated with a volume explosion that accompanies and signals a major shift in price. In April28, 2017 volume was 12M USD with a price of 0.035, next day April 29, 2017 volume exploded to 65M USD (5x), price increased to 0.045 => This was the FORESCHOCK signalling what is about to happen. April 30, 2017 volume went up to 95M USD and price to 0.05 and for a period 4 days with lower volumes around 30M (still 3x April 28, 2017) and a steady price increase toward 0.06 accompanied. This was the period of foreshock. The mainshock began on May 5 lasting until May 18 where the price topped 0.38 a more than 10X increase since the beginning of foreshock, a period that also accompanied a top volume of up to 280M USD on several days and an average of 140M USD across the cycle.
    A similar pattern can be seen in the foreshock of December 13, 2017 to December 21, 2017. Volume increased by 9X from 140M to 1.3Billion while price appreciated from 0.25 to 0.38, this was the first explosive growth signalling the beginning of FORESCHOCK, for the next 2 days volume continued up towards 5Billion USD on Dec 15th, price went up to 0.84, the next 6 days have seen lower but still above 1Billion volumes (nearly 8x as big as volumes before December 12) and a price stabilization around 0.74. Dec 22nd was the beginning of mainshock with a 5X volume growth from 750M to 3.8Billion volume accompanied by a price increase of almost 50%, the mainshock lasted until Jan 05, with volumes frequently topping 6billion and price reaching above 3$.
    So, we know that the foreshock comes with a volume explosion and an accompanied price increase of around 28-30%, it sets in with higher volumes for a short few days, stabilizes price increase for a period of 4-6 days and follows this with the mainshock which comes with another volume explosion.
    Let's look at what happened today: Volume explosion from 1.8B to 5.4B (3x) accompanied by a price increase of about 30% up to 42.5 cents. These two signals match that of the pattern we have seen in previous foreshocks. Let's see if the pattern continues over the next 6 days (2 more days of high volume followed by stabilization), if this occurs we may be looking at a foreshock with the possibility of a new mainshock to follow in a week's time.
  • 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.