Jump to content

Professor Hantzen

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    580
  • 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. Hah! But then, I'm not sure any of us could watch Reinhart interviewing Ripple employees & clients and for two and a half million minutes...
  10. The article I believe you're referring to cherry-picked a few companies to attack on grounds such as they had a bad website, their product was in beta, or that they had (in the authors opinion) talked up their co-located office (when in my opinion, many modern digital companies co-locate). The author even complained that because the Director was also the Secretary, the company must be a scam. I believe a more appropriate word for such a company might be "small" (or another, more positive word could be "lean"...). From this handful of complaints, the author concluded - without investigating any more - that Ripple's entire complement of 200+ companies must suffer from identical complaints and so are therefore all "scams". As such, the list of verifiable "scams" include such luminaries as SBI (one of Japans largest banking conglomerates, whose CEO's Twitter regularly tweets positive remarks regarding Ripple and XRP), Santander (who have based one of their active, customer-facing products on Ripples technology) and various other top 100 banks or FI's. I guess it would include R3 too. Realising everyone can have a bad day, I looked at a couple of the authors other articles. As a result, I am unlikely to read articles from that source again, nor post links to them or even quote them. However, one useful point may have been raised - with Ripple signing so many companies, there will inevitably come a time or two that they are inadvertently scammed themselves, and sign a relationship with a company in good faith - but the company itself was presenting an elaborate artifice to Ripple to benefit from the association. Maybe this has already happened, and maybe even the author of that article could have found such a one? But presenting any such information in such a ludicrously sensationalist and possibly libellous manner is inexcusable. Any responsible individual should contact Ripple and present any evidence of a scam directly to them.
  11. That's all fine, however I would go with @Tinyaccount's suggestion to use QR for transmitting the signed txn rather than a flash drive. As soon as a flash drive that's touched one computer touches the "air-gapped" one, you should consider it compromised. Also, in my view "secure enough" doesn't exist, unfortunately. If you're ultra-paranoid or expect nation-state level intrusion, keep in mind that "air-gapped" also doesn't necessarily exist. All computers emit various electromagnetic energy and there's little you can do about it save for building a faraday cage large enough to hold the computer and yourself, and only powering it on and off whilst inside (using a battery and inverter...). There are various ways and means for a determined attacker to get information remotely from a machine that's never been connected to anything. It's best not to display the secret on the screen of an airgapped machine for this reason as reading the screen from radio-frequency emissions (yes, LCD) may be possible if an attacker can get close enough to the source and depending on the source. Blasting white noise from the location of the computer may help mitigate some attacks. I'm not sure of the merits of adding two additional transactions to each withdrawal by changing the RegularKey each time, versus using the same RegularKey, maybe someone has an opinion on that they could share? One drawback I can see of having/using many keys is that you could end up losing control of the account by administrative error. You didn't mention the most important consideration - how are you storing whatever secret needs to be stored? Is it on the airgapped machine? As such, is the air gapped machine encrypted? And if so, how and where are you storing the password/key used to decrypt it, as that's now essentially become your "secret"? Various levels of obfuscation can be good for storing secrets. Disguise your air-gapped machine as a defunct one in a pile of other decaying computers for instance, and remove its hard drive (use a model where this is easy, or boot from flash) and place that in another location - ideally inside something else, sealed, that makes it unrecognisable as a hard drive / flash drive. If you elect to write down your secret, encode it using some method you personally can easily figure out that makes it unrecognisable as one to anyone else (drop the "s" and change the letters to numbers for instance, using a key system only you know and can remember in your head), and then label it something else, or split it into two things. Eg, "Ducati (France) Serial #" & "Old Mac CAD Program Serial #" on differently aged pieces of paper, with dashes every 5 numbers on one, and put it these with all your other genuine serial numbers in a safe. Also consider having a routine around these processes that looks like you are doing something else. Be as crafty as you like, and turn "remembering the password/secret" into "remembering how to unmask the password/secret from its disguise without anyone realising that's what you're doing". Also, one major caveat, node, linux etc are prone to logging - make sure you know how to disable those you can, or where they are kept and how to definitively erase them (which is also kind of impossible unless you're happy to rewrite over your entire drive 27 times with random characters, and do the same to the backup drive you used to store the contents of the drive whilst erasing the other one...). You could consider Tor's operating system. Another level of obfuscation is to make the air-gapped machine appear to be where your secret is entirely stored, when in fact you are booting from a flash drive you insert surreptitiously and it actually contains half of the secret, with the other half on the air-gapped machine. Aside from all that, really the best thing to do is to simply not have any singular control over your accounts - as no matter what you do, it's a single point of failure. Multi-sign with various other parties, and split the holdings into many smaller parcels with different configurations of entities as co-signers. It's essentially the same thing the wealthy have been doing with traditional holdings for aeons (via trusts, with law firms as co-signers etc).
  12. Just because a holder is under "selling restrictions", doesn't necessarily mean they are bound or will abide by them. This persons methodology also doesn't account for what would happen if those "restricted" funds were hacked. If $6 billion was shaved off the market cap, and then the biggest hack of all time dumped all those "sales-restricted" XRP back into the circulating supply again would the market cap have to be changed again? What the hacker came out afterward and said "don't worry, I'm not going to sell any, I just don't want to, ever!" - would they be taken out of "circulation" again based on trust on the hackers intentions - because that's essentially the authors reasoning in the first case? Further, I don't see any such arguments being made for the various similar cases that exist for virtually all other crypto. Satoshi's BTC have never moved - why are they included? Doesn't seem like they're in "circulation". Does Vitalik intend to dump all his ETH? Probably not, should we ask him how much he intends to sell and when, before re-computing Ethers market cap? How often should we ask? Personally I think 100B minus burned is the true "in circulating" supply, but given the escrowed amounts are on-ledger, and as such, bound by the rules that define XRP itself, I'm comfortable with circulating excluding perpetually-escrowed amounts. Anything beyond that is a pretty hard "sell" to me. All that said, anything that reduces the market cap also reduces the "glass-ceiling" the market cap imposes on most peoples perception of potential value. If it was to drop by $6 billion, I think many would just see it as a buying opportunity and it would shoot back up to where it was again... most crypto investors don't appear to understand market cap, what it represents, what (little) it's useful for and why we have it. It's become a game of "win the race", and endless garbage headlines claiming "$20 billion was added/removed to/from the markets today!". No, it wasn't. You need to look at the much lower trade volumes figure to determine that, and you need to remove an unhealthily large section of those trades for a variety of reasons to get anywhere near what was actually added or removed; likely a small fraction.
  13. Ripple's public servers have been running 24/7 with high reliability since 2013. To me the warning in theory is a disclaimer that lets them shut them down if they're costing too much to maintain or if maintaining them becomes counterproductive to the network somehow (though I can't think of how...). In practice so far it's just given them an excuse if they fail to scale fast enough to meet load, as happened during the bull-run of late 2017. Even so, they *did* work actively to scale the servers to meet load at that time, in some cases appearing to work somewhat around the clock to do so. At present, and for the foreseeable future, it would appear to be in Ripple's interests to keep these operating, and operating well - a great many XRP Ledger participants seem to use them. I'd be fairly confident using them unless you are planning to inundate the network with millions of requests in which case you should consider setting up your own private instance (which isn't particularly difficult or necessarily expensive - unless you need to host full history). As far as I'm aware, the only other completely public node you could consider "trustable" is, as others have mentioned - XRPTipBot's one. Bear in mind that using any server you don't operate also opens you up to that servers security or lack-thereof, regardless of the good intentions of the operator. Ripple have a good incentive, enough cash and expertise to ensure the security of theirs to "enterprise" level - if not also its persistence.
  14. This is extremely unlikely / effectively impossible for a variety of reasons. Firstly, institutional sales by Ripple of XRP are subject to sales restrictions - that is, for an institution to do what you're describing, they'd have to violate the terms of their contract with Ripple. Secondly, it would be considered direct market manipulation and therefore illegal. Banks/FI don't do illegal. Banks do highly unethical and questionable, but only when fully regulated to do so. There is not sufficient regulation in the crypto space to afford them such a luxury at the moment, and the sense we've got is they are on tenderhooks just buying the stuff. (Of course banks and FI's manipulate markets constantly, but they do it through "legitimate" use of endlessly recursive derivatives, subsidiaries, black box trading and regulations sprawling enough to have loopholes to exploit - crypto has none of those pieces of the puzzle in place, yet.) Thirdly, if they did this, Ripple would immediately notice - because of the transparent nature of the XRP Ledger, Ripple will know exactly how much every bank does and should have in its accounts. Fourthly, it's not in anyones vested interests to increase the volatility of XRP - if banks were doing it on purpose, Ripple (and other purchasers - there are 200 of them) would be compelled to have them cease immediately - and given that to me its likely that part of the security practice involved in these sales will involve multi-signing large movements (where Ripple may indeed be a cosigner) it's possible Ripple could even physically prevent them doing so. Fifthly (hmm, haven't used that word before - does it even exist?), there are armies of community members studying the XRP Ledger and exchange activity - this kind of manipulation, coming directly from XRP II linked accounts (all of which are known) would stand out massively and be all over this forum and everywhere else.
×
×
  • Create New...