Jump to content

Professor Hantzen

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Professor Hantzen last won the day on February 22 2017

Professor Hantzen had the most liked content!

About Professor Hantzen

  • Rank
    Advanced

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://twitter.com/phantzen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Maybe I'm reaching beyond the limits of my knowledge. As I understand it - if you start with 128-bits, then for all practical purposes, all you have at the end - in terms of your security - are those same 128-bits? In other words, as a user of the system, is there any necessity to make a discernment between the seed and the key? And if so, why introduce a new term to describe what's effectively the same thing? (I could understand why for development, but this is user-facing.)
  2. I think this is a great idea for the benefit of the future masses - at least if it's optional, mitigating the disadvantage to those used to the "s..." version. I am curious how you've implemented the check digit in your mechanism? The common schemes I know of didn't work when I did them in my head (but maybe that's because of my head...). I use the term "secret" to refer only to the base58-encoded, "s"-prefixed and checksummed version of the "seed", which I think of as just an ordinary number with no prefix or checksum. I have wondered why the well-established "private key" was not the term used to refer to what I understand is just the private part of a public/private key-pair.
  3. Great that you've done this. I don't know much (anything) about Ruby, but in general when implementing such things, watch out for how the system might fallback on some other source of randomness in the case the intended source isn't available. This could result in something less than secure and as such may be important to understand how differing systems running the same code can serve different (but still "valid") results. On from there, for the secret_seed --> secret_human_readable part, there's a roughly-parallel node.js implementation, here.
  4. Yes, that's another side of this. I mean to suggest that the metric of on-exchange XRP versus off-exchange - when taken alone - is not necessarily indicative of anything, unless paired with other figures backing up whatever claim is being made.
  5. XRP being moved to exchanges is an interesting metric to check, but it could be a predictor of selling action as much as be representative of supply purchases. It might be useful to connect this information with flow from known XRP II accounts to more feasibly determine the latter, but even then: Given the low trading volumes on the XRP Ledger presently, what you're looking at could be also seen as indicative of how much XRP the market wants to hold on exchanges versus in "cold storage". In that sense, an argument could be made that its a stronger positive signal in terms of price to see the on-exchange number *decrease*. If more want to hold XRP in cold storage on the XRP Ledger, it means more don't want to sell their XRP, so buying it becomes more difficult (ie, more expensive).
  6. This looks like mainly a charting bug/data API bug. The historical data API is known to be buggy, but this has nothing to do with the integrity of the data on the XRP Ledger itself. When I checked more directly the amount of actual ledger closes for the past 24 hours, versus a control of a 24 hours period about one month ago - they were about the same. I also checked the past 2.5 hours versus a 2.5 hour period a month ago, same again. What I am noticing is a variation in the pattern in which ledgers are closing. The network appears to close a handful of ledgers every second or so, and then hang around 8-9 seconds before closing another one, then return to roughly once per second, and so on. It looks like the average close time is overall within normal expected frequency, but perhaps the chart backend is not averaging it usefully due to this behaviour. The endpoint of the chart may be too dependent on a small number of immediately previous ledger closes or something like that. No idea if the network assumes such a pattern regularly and that's considered ordinary or not, but I've certainly seen variance before (though usually at times of high load which that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment).
  7. Given the amount of caveats and the lengths I needed to take to describe them, I somewhat agree with the negative assessments. Though I still find it interesting that the Top 100 by this metric shows 90% of all of the ex and current Ripple employees that I am aware have ever used the board. That they reliably cluster together at the very top when ordering by RPP makes me disagree that it's useless. Moving the cut-off point to a higher reputation (~700, arrived at by limiting to the first ten pages of results), the list is still populated with many ex and current Ripple employees. In that case, there are three within the top 5, two more within the top 15, and no others within the top 100. The four excluded by the shift in cut-off point all only posted for a short period of time before disappearing, so it would appear to work better at a higher setting in that regard. It's also populated more thoroughly with names even I recognise (I'm not a particularly frequent contributor), so maybe it does indeed show more useful results at a higher cut-off to remove a greater amount of noise/outliers. I may redo it. @vsyc RPP dilutes Reputation by weighting it against Posts, so at base its an improvement over Reputation alone. It penalises high-volume, low-medium-response posters in favour of low-medium-volume, high-response posters. (Also, I must note you have a negative RPP... ) Thanks for the kind words @Tinyaccount!
  8. When reading through the forum, I often unconsciously divide a members Reputation by their Posts in my head, to get a feeling for how their contributions are percieved by other members. A higher ratio of Reactions Per Posts ("RPP" ;) ) shows that more people may be willing to demonstrate they value those members contributions. I find it interesting, but also useful. I might not read a long post by a member I don't recognise if they have a terribly low ratio, for instance. Perhaps others do something like this too? Recently, when @BobWay joined, I noticed that his RPP climbed very (x)rapidly up to being much higher than what I'm used to seeing on a regular basis. It reminded me of something I've wanted to do for a while - scrape the member data from the site, and make a chart to see where all members sit by this metric. With a few caveats (one briefly on the chart itself, more in detail below), here it is: Caveats (this list may not be exhaustive...!): 1) One limiting factor with this chart is with how people digest and respond to information when all eyes are upon them. For many people, truths can be uncomfortable, difficult or even completely unwelcome - and even when they do agree or value an insight, they don't always want to "own up to it". I like to think people are pretty open-minded and flexible here, but I've still seen this pretty normal human behaviour from time to time, as anyone would reasonably expect. So, while I believe this chart give some useful indication of something, it is not prone to including those who may regularly say things other people aren't willing to show they agree with, even though they may agree, or even though those things may be true, important and valuable. There's probably nothing that can be done about that, except to note that if there's a member missing you expected to find on here - well, you may have a good point. 2) The chart does not use a complete set of members who have Reputation. If it did, it wouldn't be very useful as it would likely be filled with outliers who made one post, received a handful of votes and never returned. And their inclusion would be at the expense of significantly more established members who might be hard to see among them or even drop off the chart entirely. Partly as a fix, and partly because I didn't have time nor inclination to click "Next" 200 times, I picked range of reputation to include and culled the rest below it. The solution is perhaps equal parts reasonable and unreasonable, given that the point at where some members are included versus excluded is essentially arbitrary. Members on the boundary could theoretically be one reaction away from topping the chart in at #1, or disappearing entirely. Nevertheless, a compromise simply had to be made. If anyone has a suggestion about how to better go about it - I'm all ears. 3) As I understand it, the "Reputation" score on the forum counts any "reaction" of any kind (and hopefully I've got that right...!). In theory, someone could game their way to the top of such a chart by posting only tremendously sad and confusing things. In practice I doubt someone would be able to gain much traction with their posts - more likely they would be ignored - so I think the metric stands a pretty good chance of being at least vaguely indicative of how members posts are perceived. (Also, in my anecdotal and unscientific experience, I see the positively-connotated Like, Thanks and Laugh buttons clicked much more often, in that order. The negative Sad and Confused buttons seem to be used at the low ends of the bell curve.) What gives me some hope that this metric is valuable in spite of these caveats, is that the resultant Top 100 is populated with almost all of the current and former Ripple Employees on the forum that I am aware of, and all of them within the top third of the chart. That was pretty cool to see! Anyway, see what you think, and if this is valuable/useful maybe I can do it again in a month or so.
  9. Well, what's your reward for asking the question? My take on summarising the answers already given: 1) It's interesting, fun and/or feels good. There is no comparable, sufficiently-utilised open ledger in existence that doesn't also destroy the environment. That's cool! 2) Running a node gets you fast and reliable access to the ledger and information on it. This can also *save* you money if you regularly query the ledger, as you can locally query stored data as much as you want without cost. If you are relying on others servers, you may be paying high fees in data every month to satisfy your queries, and have to wait on that data to be transmitted each time, possibly redundantly. It can also save you money if you trade on the decentralised exchange, and need to submit those trades fast and reliably. 3) It's very cheap to do. But this minimal costs gets you the benefits of both 1) and 2). It's not necessarily cheap to run a full-history node, but this comes with significantly stronger versions of the above benefits, which is obviously worth it to some. The only reason the Internet now exists, is because thousands of people all over the world did exactly the same thing when it was in its infancy. That's how the internet was first created. By people voluntarily connecting their computers together, at their own cost, and with no real immediate benefit other than that they thought it was cool and interesting. Many see a similar process playing out now, with the "Internet of Value" in its infancy, of which they view technologies such as the XRP Ledger as a potentially integral part. There are many people now I'm sure who would have loved to have been part of the early Internet, even if they made no money out of it - just to be able to say they were there and took part in it. However, huge businesses and even entire new industries were launched on the back of such open and giving voluntary participation. Billionaires, and trillion-dollar economies were created out of nothing, and in that case the focus wasn't even financial. So, here we have a similar thing playing out again, and this time the focus is specifically around finance and money. I'm sure you can do the math on that.
  10. Fair amount of stuff archived here if you hunt around the various dates: https://web.archive.org/web/20150422094949/https://wiki.ripple.com/Main_Page
  11. Hah, so the most valuable art in the world might be the Nazca lines - huge, and ugly. I kind of agree regarding market cap, and I was not entirely non-serious to suggest doing away with this popular valuation scheme could be healthy for crypto in terms of price. I went into this in another thread. (One thing I didn't get into deeply there is the reliance on wash-trading current market cap values have.) TL;DR: I don't necessarily see a ceiling for any crypto price, but I do think if we multiply price by supply and get a value orders of magnitude greater than all the wealth in the world, it's unlikely it's going to get up there. The reason being that the major market participants (who set price), are performing and likely will always perform similar calculations themselves as a matter of course before making decisions. I think it will take a major shift in current popular perception, for that ceiling to break. I love this argument. Thanks!
  12. Haven't watched the video, but I'm not sure I can see Chris Larsen's net-worth reaching $51.9 trillion dollars (without a serious devaluing of the USD perhaps!). The richest people in the world hover around 1/500th of that. When proposing optimistic predictions for crypto prices, it can be useful to take this into consideration. If you do, you'll see that if XRP got into the $10,000 - $15,000 range its market cap would likely eclipse the total value of every form of money, property, businesses, net-worth of individuals, derivatives, all the worlds stocks - every form of all kinds of value the world over - combined. Then again, I tend to think market cap is completely screwed as a metric. So, given that - why not? Bring on the $10K XRP! But before we do that, maybe we need to figure out a more accurate way to measure crypto's value.
  13. This is fantastic. Thank you. Something to be aware of, when xRapid users calculate cost-savings, they may - as an understandable, but still disagreeable matter of course - include the "cost" of exchange rate volatility over the time period of a regular payment. Measured in days this can be a significant risk, and in retrospect it can look very bad - especially if the FX market concerned is consistently appreciating in your favour over time (say over a quarter) but you're locking in a "bad rate" at the beginning of a several day wait period for all your transactions during that quarter. In most situations, the payment provider is not going to pass on significant savings (or profit) in this regard to the user - as it may be part of their profit model. You're typically getting either a bad rate, or a really bad one. As such, despite that in principle the risk should go both ways, it could be considered to be mainly a downside risk of payments that are anything longer than instant. On the other hand, because successful xRapid transactions are effectively instant, this kind of "cost" becomes an irrelevant factor, and so can be counted in xRapid's favour that this risk is eliminated. However - and this is the important bit - the locked-in rate with xRapid is always going to be the initial rate anyway, so in most situations this aspect of "risk" is effectively identical as for a regular payment that takes days. In principle, it's possibly a similar argument to "lost" sales versus piracy - the argument that because you didn't get something you likely couldn't have got anyway, you've suffered a loss (or in this case, a gain). I've wondered if we need to watch out for this kind of claim of "savings" regarding xRapid, so it's very nice to see that this probably *wasn't* the case for Mercury FX's claim. It looks much like they are just reporting the real, actualised cost saving transparently, and it's significant. That's great to see, especially considering how undeveloped/low-liquidity these markets are at this stage.
  14. I almost can't believe they wouldn't hire you, to me you'd be one of the prime hires of the community. You're certainly one of the most knowledgable. I've learned a huge amount from your posts. Especially valuable is that you often intelligently challenge the choices Ripple makes. I can only conclude the right person isn't aware you could be interested - or that the "right person" somehow isn't aware of your regular (daily?) contributions to the community and the repo over the past 6 years.
  15. Banks are XRP "bagholders", and they're tied into restrictive resale-agreements as well. They've purchased a quarter *billion*-worth so far among them - that we know about - directly from Ripple. They must believe XRP it has value, and will appreciate, or they wouldn't buy it, and especially not under such resale restrictions. Now the question for the rest of the XRP "bagholders", do you follow investment advice from an obviously-biased, anonymous, self-described "troll" on the internet? Or do you think for yourself, and possibly consider XRP's positives that hundreds of banks & FI's have also been "thinking" about, to the tune of millions of investment dollars each?
×
×
  • Create New...