Jump to content

Professor Hantzen

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Professor Hantzen last won the day on February 22 2017

Professor Hantzen had the most liked content!

About Professor Hantzen

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Professor Hantzen

    Earn 5% on XRP on Uphold!

    A note on these interest rates: According to their FAQ: To me this could be more revealing. A more pertinent way to put it might be that the interest rate they'll pay you on a digital asset varies inverse to the assets value. Eg, if you lock up BTC with them at 10% per annum for 6 months, and BTC goes up 10x during that time, the annual interest rate you will effectively receive will drop from 10% down to 1%. Conversely, if you think any of the assets they offer interest on could plummet drastically to the point of being worth less than the interest they'd pay, you could hedge your assets in a somewhat risk-free manner. Ie, if you thought Bitcoin had a 50/50 chance dropping to less than 1% of its current value, placing your BTC with Uphold would get you a reliable five times more than that at the end of the 6 months. On the upside, if it didn't plummet, you'd still get all your BTC back (...if no hack), plus the interest as a bonus.
  2. Professor Hantzen

    xRapid execution order confirmed by David Schwarz

    If there are people out there who believe Goofy is a cow, I think I could believe just about anything.
  3. Professor Hantzen

    xRapid execution order confirmed by David Schwarz

    Wow. So... the purpose of a forum is to discuss things publicly. If we post something on it, we can expect any and all people to chime in with their opinions - I'd hope that's indeed the point. And no, I'm not suggesting any particular term is 100% infallibly objective, even when I'm using the word "objective", I guess I might be using the word somewhat relatively (uhh... if not also subjectively... *ducks*). Whether objectivity even exists is a philosophical question and personally I side with everything is ultimately subjective and there is in a practical sense no objective reality, but this is perhaps somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. I am, as both @Ripple-Stiltskin and @opaopa pointed out, simply intending to suggest that the term "money" us more subjective than fiat, and given this topic deteriorated into confusion almost immediately after being posted - I am specifically suggesting that using less subjective terms could be useful to avoid that happening. Money has a very broad and readily misinterpretable definition, and fiat is usefully narrower. I noticed that people seemed to be conflating their definition of "money" with that of the asset on either side of a currency trade and these things together appeared to cause confusion. Two parties both simultaneously buy and sell their respective currencies during a currency trade - depending on whose point of view you take - that's just the unfortunate reality of the situation. If anyone disagrees with these facts, ultimately it doesn't matter. It is terribly boring when we evade learning, but people are people and it's one thing almost all of us are guilty of at one time or another. (PS - And I've no issue if @opaopa wishes to act as my spokesperson, maybe it could save me some time. )
  4. Professor Hantzen

    xRapid execution order confirmed by David Schwarz

    "Fiat" is not subjective as "money" is. When people use the word "money", they often are actually saying "my home countries common currency". "Fiat" does not have any such baggage and is typically used specifically to eliminate that subjective element and refer to instead "any countries common currency". Fiat currency is a term typically used to refer to legal tender issued by a government. "Money" is the term typically used to refer to currency issued by "my" government. As others have remarked, in currency exchange, it is commonplace (if not also useful), to refer to one party buying a currency whilst the other party simultaneously is selling theirs, and vice versa. This is just because that is an exactly accurate description of what is happening. But, because both parties are doing the same thing but with opposing currencies, and this can be confusing when coming to talk about those currencies and which point of view should be considered "correct". The terms "base" and "counter" were invented to describe the activity from the arbitrary and mutually-agreeable point of view of the presented order of the quote-pair in the market concerned. BASE/COUNTER, XRP/USD, EUR/JPY etc. This is particularly useful when writing trading software (or distributed ledger systems for that matter).
  5. Professor Hantzen

    xRapid execution order confirmed by David Schwarz

    The problem here is may be that some people are confusing "money" (a subjective term), with what are intended to be objective terms such as "base" and "counter". In terms of a Japanese person and a European person for example, who are exchanging EUR/JPY on that forex market, both think of their respectively held currencies as "money". If they went on to discuss what happened each using the term money, everyone would become hopelessly confused. This is one reason the terms "base" and "counter" exist in currency trading (though they're such nasty, unfamiliar jargon terms its arguable they don't help the confusion all that much). Suffice to say, USD is not necessarily "money" to the other 95% of the world, and its not particularly helpful to think of it that way when having discussions around the purchase and sale of country-agnostic digital assets. This is the reason David refers to non-digital currency as "fiat" - it's not a subjective term. If for example, he'd said "Every xRapid payment that succeeds involves a sale of money for XRP and then a purchase of money with XRP on one of the crypto exchanges that partners with us.", it would sound awfully unprofessional and appear to devalue XRP itself. In summary: retrain yourself to think USD does not necessarily equal "money", you'll have more productive discussions about, well... money.
  6. Also, make sure you're using all cores of your CPU. The one I wrote can be run as many times concurrently as you have cores on a single machine. If you want to find a difficult key really quickly (but expensively), you can upload the script to a cloud provider, and run it 64 or 128 times or whatever maximum CPU core count you're prepared to pay for.
  7. Professor Hantzen

    Tiff Hayden is XRP Trump

    Let's dissect this a little: The assertion here is that Twitter's @haydentiff, is also @XRPTrump. This is based on, as far as I can tell, a single tweet by @XRPTrump, which included "http://twitter.com/haydentiff" at the end of it, that Twitter displays as "Tiffany Hayden" - an underlined link to her Twitter profile, aka - a "tag". The person asserting this includes a screenshot of this tweet, and writes: "Lol, busted. When [Tiffany Hayden] is tired and forgets which account she’s posting from..." (edited for clarity, the original post refers to her somewhat unclearly) It appears the person has assumed, that because a "tag" of Tiffany Hayden's profile is included at the end of the Tweet, that Tiffany was actually intending to "sign" her post with her name, but accidentally did so with the wrong name. This assertion rests on the following assumptions: 1) That a (seasoned) Twitter user chose to "sign" their post with a tag of their own profile, even though they've never done that before. 2) That they chose to do it this one time, even though its a completely redundant thing to do, because every tweet already includes a link to the persons profile automatically, and displays it as their username above the tweet - something even complete Twitter-n00b's pick up immediately and intuitively. 3) That they thought of, and decided to do this completely redundant and unprecedented thing, even knowing it would waste precious pieces of limited character-real-estate in their tweet, and provide absolutely no benefit. 4) That the singular time this person decided to take this redundant, pointless and even actively wasteful step, in contravention of all common-sense and all prior posting style, they also got their "signature" wrong, and included instead the name of an account they were actively trying to conceal. To me, one of these would be enough to service significant doubt, and all four of these together being assumed together seems to stretch the validity of the assertion beyond breaking point. @TiffanyHayden's explanation, that someone she communicates with frequently, simply tagged her profile in a post, makes an almost infinite amount of greater sense. IMO, the person who made this claim should apologise to both parties and all of us. Personally, I apologise to you all for not investigating the claim properly before putting the two profiles into a tweet analyser - I wouldn't have bothered if I'd taken the time to look at how unbelievably silly the original claim was.
  8. Professor Hantzen

    Tiff Hayden is XRP Trump

    I"m not so sure they are the same person. Analysis of their accounts shows a very different posting schedule, and on which Friday and Sunday poor Tiffany would appear to get no sleep at all if she were keeping up the ruse:
  9. Exactly. And this process is a fundamental component of most blockchains. What makes Ripple (mostly) unique among them, is it doesn't use mining to reach agreement about the present state of the ledger. Instead, it uses a much faster, cheaper and environmentally-friendly process called "consensus". Another benefit of this is that the variation in processing round times is very low. So with Ripple a transaction is usually confirmed within a known amount of time - usually 3-4 seconds. In mining-based blockchains the variation is much greater. From 10 minutes - an hour with Bitcoin, or 10 seconds to a minute or so with Ethereum for example. There are also occasional outliers that have network participants waiting much longer to find out if their transaction is included in a block. These kind of events still can happen from time to time with Ripple, but they are much, much less frequent, and typically much shorter in duration. Ie, waiting 20 seconds for a consensus round would be extremely rare, maybe less than once a year (don't quote me on that, but as a rough ballpark...).
  10. Professor Hantzen

    The impossibility of liquidity in xrp

    1) I would argue the "quantity" is always relative and dynamic in any system as pricing can never be consistent, being reliant on infinite other factors. Regardless of that, the point is that physical gold becomes unmanageable at its extremes, where XRP does not. 2) Sort of, but for 99.9% of golds history participants typically did not care about - nor die over - a certificate. Possessing the item required physically acquiring the actual item. One property of XRP is that physically acquiring the actual item is able to be done in 3-4 seconds, and without either party needing to trust each other or know who each other is. A gold certificate is an IOU, whereas transferring XRP is equivalent to physically delivering the actual gold. 3) See 2. 4) See 2. 5) This is the crux as I see it. We simply are trying this out, and like many things humans are trying out (such as AI that can evolve to be smarter than the sum of all human intelligence and knowledge), they are inevitabilities of technological progress - that is, whether its a good idea or not becomes an irrelevant concern. It is simply going to happen. Now, given that is effectively a definite - how this will impact us? Given that the properties of these new economic systems are far beyond anything we can previously compare them to, and that they invariably exist well outside the previous constraints of the prior models, one way it may impact us is that we could- IMO, very likely - have to "abolish economics as a discipline and just wing it".
  11. Professor Hantzen

    The impossibility of liquidity in xrp

    Comparing XRP to gold to come up with potentials strikes me as a little like comparing the internet to carving pictures on a cave wall. To make such a comparison fair, you need to imagine a history where gold has additional properties, such as: 1) Having a significantly larger supply, so that whilst bound somewhat by its own economics, was never bound by limitations of its own physical representation, such that a sub-nano-grams of gold could be as easily physically exchanged and accounted for as 100 metric tonnes (should either need arise). 2) Any amount of gold (theoretically up to or including the entire supply, or down to 1 hundred quadrillionth's worth) able to be physically teleported around the world in 3-4 seconds at a dynamically-adjustable typically-negligible cost. 3) Any gold holder can elect, simply by choosing a random number, to store their physical entitlement of gold in such a way that the only way for someone to steal it would be to learn that number - leading to previously unimaginable situations of individual financial empowerment such as the ability to undetectably cross a border, or evade a war zone, with a kings-fortunes-worth of gold merely by remembering a sequence of seven words. 4) The ability to "program" the gold to avail itself to a recipient at a future date, given the fulfilment of a particular condition (such as the date passing). 5) The ability to add to all of the above properties with further features as they are thought of, and as needs arise in a cooperative, dynamic manner. If you go back through time, give gold all of the above properties (and more I've left out), and reimagine all of history in that light - maybe you'll find some fair comparison between gold and XRP.
  12. Professor Hantzen

    Official Kraken Twitter acc asking about Ripple vs XRP

    Yes, that <protocol> <asset> thing is applied very inconsistently on Kraken's website and correspondence. Along with Lumens and some others, even Ethereum is variously referred to as Ether (ETH) and Ethereum (ETH) on different parts of the site and in correspondence. That's a confusion between <token name> <token code>, and <protocol name> <token code>. They appear to have no trouble referring to EOS as "EOS (EOS)", so why not "XRP (XRP)"? (Or "XRP Ledger (XRP)" if they want to point out the protocol name?) It's also clear from the threads that Kraken etc are very knowledgable on (at least their version of...) the precise history of Ripple the company and the asset XRP. The way they're asking these questions, then immediately disagreeing with the obvious and authoritative answers, appear to be baiting Ripple into an argument so they can then go on the attack and recount the history as they see it in order to make a particular point. I don't accept the explanation that they simply don't understand and wish to have clarity. That could be achieved in a single private query. The only reason to go over this publicly is to cause a fuss. They ask for official clarification from Ripple, then argue with them about their answer - obviously this will create more confusion. It should be painfully obvious now what Ripple wants to refer to these things as, and given they are the organisation primarily behind developing the thing I don't see why anyone would have a reason to argue with it. Personally, I actually think referring to XRP as "ripples" makes sense, has solid historical reasons and sounds nice. That Ripple the company wishes to rename XRP/Ripples to simply XRP, presumably to remove themselves more from the picture surrounding the "it's a security" nonsense, would be a tactical move that intends to help protect the technology from unfair regulation. Does Kraken want the regulation to be unfair? Yeah, I'd rather call XRP's "ripples", but I'd much rather the technology was unhampered by unfair regulation than it have a particular name, and if referring to it more simply could help that even a tiny bit, I'll call them "XRP's". And if I was running an exchange, and I was concerned about communicating about my products clearly and having my customers understand me, I wouldn't have a public argument about the name of an asset with the people largely responsible for developing the thing. I'd ask them in private, and accept their response. Especially if it was obvious those developers are referring to the asset differently to in the past, in order to make everyone's lives easier, including mine...
  13. Professor Hantzen

    Official Kraken Twitter acc asking about Ripple vs XRP

    Ripple could certainly have been clearer in announcing the name change(s) at the time they made them, but the current documentation makes it pretty clear what the names of everything are and this has been out for a long time now. It was also pointed out immediately to Kraken & Jesse after they posed their questions: https://developers.ripple.com/consensus.html#the-xrp-ledger-protocol-consensus-and-validation Protocol: XRP Ledger Protocol Network: XRP Ledger Network Ledger: XRP Ledger Asset: XRP (It's pretty straightforward...!) And there are many instances of pieces of software having legacy, outdated names embedded within their code or in application names in the same way the XRP Ledger server software is called "rippled" owing to its past. It's disingenuous of Kraken to pretend this is uncommon or confusing. For example, a huge chunk of the macOS API methods have been referred to as "NS<method>" for decades because of its early basis on the NextStep OS Steve Jobs brought back in from his NextStep company (and based the new macOS on), when he rejoined Apple in 1997. What would people think if a prominent macOS company started haranguing Apple suggesting they either change their name to NextStep to clear up any remaining confusion resulting from this legacy code? It might not be exactly the same situation, but the silliness of it rings true to me. It feels more like Kraken/Jesse is desperate to exert some kind of control or influence over Ripple through this odd spat. I wonder if it reveals Kraken has been largely cut out of a pie that's forming and they're regretful. Jesse was on Ripples board and left in a huff when Ripple was significantly smaller and less likely to succeed. Maybe they have some knowledge of what's coming next and that's behind this strange drive to try go back and recreate the past.
  14. Professor Hantzen

    Official Kraken Twitter acc asking about Ripple vs XRP

    I read a bunch of twitter threads on this from two Kraken accounts and also Jesse's (CEO Kraken). It struck me that they seem to be wilfully playing dumb. Despite being given very clear direct answers to their questions, they persist in pretending that confusion remains. No idea to what end. Seems strange to open margin trading for XRP and then do a weird anti-PR job on it. The lack of professionalism in Kraken's responses was surprising too. Several instances of customers vowing not to use them any longer as a result.
  15. Professor Hantzen

    Real Talk- Binance XRP "base pair" listing

    I get your angle, but to me what it comes down to is simply: if he didn't want to add to XRP's value, he wouldn't go handing it base-pair listings on the worlds biggest exchange. Looks to me that for whatever reason (well, common sense perhaps...), he's coming around. (Or maybe "Santa" gave him some XRP for Christmas.)