Jump to content

Professor Hantzen

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Professor Hantzen

  1. 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.
  2. Professor Hantzen

    How Ripple Is Screwing XRP Bagholders

    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?
  3. Professor Hantzen

    The Ripple Drop – Episode 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...
  4. Professor Hantzen

    We all got fooled again.

    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.
  5. 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).
  6. Professor Hantzen

    Report: XRP Market Cap Could Be Overestimated By Billions

    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.
  7. 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.
  8. Professor Hantzen

    Q4 2018 XRP Markets Report

    Username checks out.
  9. Professor Hantzen

    Q4 2018 XRP Markets Report

    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.
  10. Professor Hantzen

    Q4 2018 XRP Markets Report

    We don't have figures for dollar value XRP purchases by institutions prior to Q4 2016, however, we can probably assume its fairly negligible to the whole picture (if you multiply the below 2016 figures x4 for instance it doesn't make a lot of difference). Relying on the figures we certainly have, we can see the following has been invested by banks/FI in XRP year over year: 2016: $4.6m 2017: $67.4m 2018: $171.7m Doesn't look too bad. That's $243.7m financial institutions the world over have invested in XRP specifically. A quarter billion dollars? I don't think there is any other crypto currency that can make even remotely a claim such as that. Interesting too, to look back and see this as a percentage of (coinmarketcap's) current "market cap" for XRP: 2016: 0.04% 2017: 0.55% 2018: 1.85% Banks/FI's have been buying up more and more of what's out there, and we know they have stringent sales restrictions when they buy. Assuming no subsequent sales, and conversely, assuming no on-market buys, almost 2% of all XRP supply, or 1 out of every 50 in the wild, may be currently owned by a bank or financial institution. That's kinda cool. Looking quarterly: 2016 Q4: 4.6m 2017 Q1: 6.7m 2017 Q2: 21m 2017 Q3: 19.6m 2017 Q4: 20.1m 2018 Q1: 16.6m 2018 Q2: 16.9m 2018 Q3: 98.0m 2018 Q4: 40.2m What I find interesting about this is what I perceive as possibly 6 months latency on banks/FI's en masse reacting to the bull run of 2017 EOY. Sales were down for the first two quarters of 2018, and only picked up (significantly) in Q3. Another way to look at it is we can't necessarily draw too much useful information from what the market's doing versus institutional sales - they may not have much in common, or if they do, there may be significant and unknown delays involved, undermining usefulness. Another way to look at the last quarter is that its the second highest quarter XRP's had in terms of institutional sales, and almost twice the size of third place. To me its too early to draw a conclusion regarding the drop in Q4. It could be an ordinary fluctuation - eg, if we had 5 years worth of figures would we always see a drop in Q4? (Even something as simple as holidays?) But on the whole, I think the report was pretty low-standard. Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of style and content. I looked forward to Miguel Vias' lucid market insights into the crypto space, his play-by-play recaps of pivotal moments from the quarter, and the many charts - some of which would have taken some effort to prepare. This Q4 2018 report is much lighter, low on content, and doesn't even bear his name. It's a shame, but perhaps it indicates he's been busy doing more important things, which I guess could be a positive.
  11. You can, but to best protect your funds, you shouldn't submit your secret to a remote server (such as s1.ripple.com). I took "not for sustained or business use" to mean "we reserve the right to shut this down if it gets too expensive for us to maintain". I don't think it's likely in the near future. They kept all of their public servers running and expanded their capabilities during the late-2017 bull run when activity and usage was much higher than it is now. You can use the XRP Ledger without third party tools, in which case you either need to create your own tools, or use those supplied by Ripple. At this stage that means either running rippled, or using the Ripple API (which has a confusing name, XRP Ledger Javascript API might be better). Either of these can be used to sign your transactions locally before submitting them to the network over websocket to Ripple's public servers. If you don't want to operate a rippled node and don't want to use Ripple API, you can run rippled in a completely offline mode (stand-alone mode), and only use it to sign your transactions, which you can then submit to Ripple's public servers over websocket. You would likely start with some JSON describing your transaction, and end up with a tx_blob of hex digits that has been "signed" by your secret, but does not actually contain your secret in any usable form - all on a local, offline machine. You can then send a simpler JSON command directly to the public server containing only this signed tx_blob. If you ever find yourself about to send your secret of a network anywhere (even Ripple's servers), you should stop as you're doing it wrong.
  12. Professor Hantzen

    Q4 analysis/prediction

    Just had a look at that external markets endpoint. The data it returns appears to be excluding various pairs and exchanges in a manner I can't determine - and unfortunately the data api in general has been a bit unreliable in my experience. You could probably get complete data using coinapi, I know they have a lot of history, and I did verify they are reporting largely accurate data down to the sub-second, versus what I historically captured myself (on at least the one exchange I checked). They have a free tier but it's limited to 100 requests per day (not clear what the size limit is on those requests), the OHCLV historical is probably what you'd need, and according to this page https://www.coinapi.io/integration they have data available on XRP going back to November 2013 across 256 exchanges (@ peak). It also looks like they can supply compiled CSV volume data on demand, using their sister site https://www.cryptotick.com. It costs, but for data in larger time-frames it seemed reasonable. Looking forward to your next update, you're providing some of the best insights into Ripple's XRP activities I've seen anywhere. Loving it! Be interesting to see how your analysis matches up with the Q4 report.
  13. Professor Hantzen

    Q4 analysis/prediction

    This is a great report. I love the detail and the work you've put into it, and your insights. There is one thing however I believe may be incorrect. Your % calculations for total volume as according to your listed source, appear to either be relying on incomplete volume data versus Ripple's provided figure, or are comparing against the wrong figure. Either and/or both of these is why your percentage values are significantly higher versus theirs. There possible two issues I see here: 1) Significant differences between sources of "total volume" data. There are many exchanges, and many conflicting sources of volume information as sources will arbitrarily include or exclude large volume exchanges in their "total volume" figures. For example, the figure right now on your source cryptocompare for the past 24 hour volume of XRP trades is USD$175M, whereas it is USD$411M for the same time period on coinmarketcap (which is also a more widely used source of such data). If Ripple used the latter and you used the former as the source of "total volume", your 3% figure would be wrong by a factor of greater than 2x - and that's just the difference today. How does this factor vary on other days? The figure for the past month on coinmarket cap has a range of 376M to 1.6B for the past month with an average of 563M - I can't find the respective figures on cryptocompare (which is somewhat worrying...!). There are many such aggregators of market volume, all presenting different amounts of volume from varying sources. Further discrepancies arise from the choices these sites make in their reporting such as whether to include or exclude particular exchanges that offer their customers zero-fee schedules for example. Such exchanges are more open to artificially-inflated volume figures as a result of wash trading (which may be encouraged, or even instigated by the exchange). One source that claims to include "all" exchanges is coinapi (however, we have no clue as to what criteria coinapi uses to decide whether an exchange is counted as "an exchange"). Important to bear in mind is that there is also a huge amount of fake volume regularly entering and disappearing from all of these sources. Eg, a new unregulated startup with 3 employees could launch a zero-fee exchange with an army of bots "trading" all of the popular coins back and forth in previously unheard of billions of volume, rocket to the top of the exchange volume charts on only coincompare, and coinapi, but not coinmarket cap (who decided to exclude it for example), and suddenly be responsible for 50% of all trading volume on those sources, but not the others, throwing Ripple's, and anyone else's volume % calculations completely out, depending on where each party is sourcing the volume for their calculations. Such calculations may then change again when the exchange subsequently comes under regulation and investigation, it turning out to be a complete fraud, and the three employees arrested, the customer trades reversed and funds returned and the exchange wound down. Exactly this kind of thing has happened, and is ongoing right now, in Korea and China, for example. And during the 2017-18 bull-run, owing to the dubious nature of Korean exchange volume and pricing differences, coinmarketcap famously and controversially removed all Korean exchanges from their volume and pricing calculations for a while. (And an interesting point might be - did Ripple include any values inadvertently sourced from any such exchanges in their reports made at that time?) 2) XRP trade volume when traded against USD, versus XRP volume when traded against ANY asset, and the resultant figures each normalised into USD and then combined. I notice that cryptocompare reports the latter figure on the front page, but when going deeper into analysing an asset, it reports only the first, significantly smaller subset figure, providing the user with the option to choose which asset to examine. I didn't spend long, but I couldn't find a way to show the actual total including all assets, and normalised into a particular currency such as USD. I do note that the amount of difference between the USD subset of total XRP volume is 14:1 today, which is in the same ballpark as your reported discrepancy of 0.17% versus 3% (17.6:1). Are you possibly also using the wrong "total volume" figure versus Ripple? I believe they are reporting the second figure, that is, the total XRP volume when traded against ANY asset, and the resultant set of trade volumes all normalised to USD and added together (which is not simple to do accurately as it has to be done for every asset at the USD rate corresponding to that of the time the respective trades were made - indeed it is possible that various aggregators shortcut this step and simply normalise at the current price, which would result it wildly different reported figures again). In either case, it's not possible to usefully compare without asking Ripple how they are and how they have been calculating their total volume throughout. I would caution that attempting to form conclusions based on such a comparison is possibly not useful to the point of being significantly incorrect. Have you asked Ripple what source they use? They certainly seem to be very open, maybe they've even answered this question already.
  14. Professor Hantzen

    Proof of Coinbase adding XRP?

    This tweet and the video are dated over a year ago. The transaction provided as "proof" in the video (so touted by the original person who tweeted it), turned out to be just a deposit of XRP made from Shapeshift, proving essentially nothing. Even if this was legitimate, it would appear any plans for integration by Coinbase were either scrapped or put on hold for more than a year now, so its a negative sign if it is indeed anything at all.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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. )
  18. 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).
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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:
  23. 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...).
  24. 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".
  25. 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.