Jump to content

BrownBear

Member
  • Content Count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BrownBear

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TIL that I hacked your account and posted about github.
  2. This is such a strawman argument. Next thing you know, Unix is not open source because a single person also uploads it to github.
  3. Do you think there is $130b locked in crypto now? The MC is not a reflection of how much money is in the market. It is only a calculation of the highest price paid/sold for a coin time supply. For example: Lets say you empty an order books orders with $100,000 until the next highest price went from 0.40 to $1. You don't think you just added 60 billion dollars to XRPs value, did you? Note: These order book numbers are bogus and only to illustrate a point that you can significantly increase the market cap with a value lower than the resulting increase. There is no doubt the MC could reach 40T. That doesn't mean there are 40T worth of XRP.
  4. People who view the XRPL as centralised will continue to do so regardless of who maintains an explorer. It's FUD.
  5. Any market cap is not the total value of all the tokens actual value. It is the highest current value of one coin x supply. It does not matter if the market cap is $1 Trillion or $100 Trillion. You could never exchange all those tokens for the equivalent value in fiat. If you tried, you would immediately devalue the token and never realise that value. Market cap discussions annoy me.
  6. I trust bankers as much as I trust politicians.
  7. You need to read documentation. I literally copied from Ripples payment flow documentation and you think Ripple is full of it. Here is the 'settlement' description. "The transfers executed over the Interledger Protocol. The funds are transferred from the originating bank's transactional account (on its ILP Ledger) to the beneficiary bank's transactional account (on its ILP Ledger). This transfer is triggered automatically when the originating bank makes the Submit Sub-Payment request. Executing the settlement payment does not require any additional action on the part of the originating bank." Their documentation literally says they settle the transactions themselves. I have provided quotes, links, briefings and documentation. You have responded with "But I don't agree so you are wrong." Want the step by step? 1. The originating bank makes an internal book transfer debiting the funds from the sender's account. In the example I used above, $125 is deducted: $120 for the payment and $5 for the originating bank’s fee. 2. The originating bank makes a Submit Sending Payment request to Messenger to acknowledge that the funds have been debited from the originator's account in the bank's internal systems. **The request to Messenger does not affect the bank's internal systems.** Typically, integrationlogic coordinates the transfer in the internal systems with executing the Submit Sending Payment request. 3. The originating bank’s Messenger instance notifies the beneficiary bank’s Messenger instance that the funds have been debited from the sender’s account. So far two transaction have taken place and yet xCurrent didn't do any of it. 4. The Submit Sending Payment request triggers the settlement payment, which tells the originating bank's ILP Ledger to transfer to the beneficiary bank's ILP Ledger. 5. The originating bank’s Messenger instance notifies the beneficiary bank’s Messenger instance that the settlement payment has been sent. 6. The beneficiary bank sees that the ILP transfers have been validated by Validator and makes an internal book transfer to deliver the funds to the beneficiary's account. 7. The beneficiary bank makes a Submit Receiving Payment request to its Messenger instance, which changes the state of the payment to succeeded in its database. 8. The beneficiary bank's instance notifies the originating bank's Messenger instance that the funds have been delivered to the beneficiary’s account. 9. After receiving the notification, the originating bank's Messenger instance changes the state of the payment to succeeded in its database. At this point, both parties consider the payment complete. As you can CLEARLY see, everything was settled between the banks themselves and only the xCurrent messenger and validator were used to confirm that they did the transfers. It did not at any point make the transfers for them and thus did not settle the transaction. You sir are spreading false information about how it works. And you STILL cannot answer the question I asked to backup your claim. You are now blocked. Enjoy living in your echo chamber.
  8. So now we have ANOTHER user that does not know wtf he is talking about. Do you guys even keep up with Ripple news?
  9. Still refusing to answer my question I see. Give it up man, you choked. You had one chance and you blew it.
  10. TIL that xVia is really xCurrent in disguise, Ripple fooled us with different products because Lucky says xCurrent can do it all by itself! According to Lucky, David ís wrong and xCurrent can use XRP by itself. Who cares what Ripple staff say, lets all listen to Lucky! xVia and xRapid are just there to throw us all off the scent!
  11. No. It simply sends requests. The banks local ledger updates from the request and sends a confirmation back via xCurrent that it has either been completed or failed. xCurrent cannot move funds and because it cannot move funds or update a banks ledger, it cannot enforce settlement. Lets say a payment is initiated by Bank A to Bank Z via Bank G, Messenger instances at both banks exchange information about Bank A and Bank Z for KYC/AML checks and sanctions screening. The sending Messenger also queries Bank G for its processing fees for posting the payment for Bank Z. It also obtains the exchange rate from the liquidity provider (could be the bank’s FX desk). Bank Gs Messenger compiles this information, adds their processing fees and presents the bank with the all-in cost of the transaction. Assuming that Bank Gs fees are $5, Bank A fees are €5 and the EUR/USD rate at 1.1429, the total cost of sending €100 to Bank Z would be $125. Once Bank A accepts the charge, the payment is initiated. Bank G debits Bank As account to the amount of $125, collects the $5 fee and credits the segregated account $120. These funds are not yet credited to the liquidity provider (Bank G). They are put on hold until Bank G provides proof to Validator that it has also put funds on hold that can be posted to Bank Z. Bank G also puts €105 on hold and provides a cryptographic receipt to Validator proving that the condition has been fulfilled. This triggers Validator to instruct Bank G to put the funds on hold from Bank A and provide a cryptographic receipt of the hold. These receipts contain the cryptographic proof of the hold of funds, but do not contain any information about the banks, transacting parties or payment details. As you can see, so far all xCurrent has been doing is processing messages. The banks themselves do the settlements. I'll ask you the same question I asked P3t3ris v2 aka PG1 - What means of settlement are you assuming are being used with xCurrent? It still uses the correspondent system for settlement is the only valid answer. I'm sorry if this ancient banking system is hard for you to understand, but this is why we need xRapid. To kill this system once and for all. I will leave you to your own opinions now. It is pretty clear you don't want a discussion, you want to argue until the other person gives up. So I will simply give up. Goodbye P3t3ris v3
  12. Your failure to understand how it works does not mean they have provided incorrect information. What part of this product description is confusing you the most? "Using xCurrent, banks message each other in real-time to confirm payment details prior to initiating the transaction and to confirm delivery once it settles." It literally says real time payment details followed by confirmation ONCE it settles. It does not say it provides settlement, you are inventing this yourself. So why don't you go tell Ripple that they don't know their own product?
  13. Incorrect : If Bank A has xCurrent and wants to send a payment to Bank Z, but Bank Z only has a relationship with Bank G and Bank G has a relationship with Bank A. Bank A will not settle a payment with Bank Z instantly just because Bank Z and Bank G have a relationship. The only thing that happens quicker is the messaging of the payment details and setlement confirmation to and from Bank A and G. xCurrent only provides a confirmation via messaging that the settlement is completed. The only time this will be instant is if both sender and receiver have a direct relationship AND prefunded nostro/vostro accounts. Settlements are done by the banks themselves. I'll say again, xCurrent does not provide settlements. Only messaging. You couldn't be more wrong on how it works.
  14. Maybe. But one method requires the other to accept a message in return for trust that the other has available funds and can complete the transaction. The other moves value directly and does not take on counterparty risks.
×
×
  • Create New...