Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by jn_r

  1. I think it depends also on how the CBDC is implemented. Although being a bearer note, it might be possible to take it away from you or make it invalid. Currently, cash coins are probably registered in amounts, but not marked. Banknotes do have serial number, but that is/can not be really used to make it invalid, no-one checks this number on e.g. revocation status. With a CBDC implementation using a blockchain like XRP, Ethereum or Bitcoin alike would allow the money to be traced and earmarked. As counter example, Elixxir is a type of blockchain that will implement truly anonymous money, it can not be traced. I think it is a matter of debate if this is desirable or not for the implementation of CBDC, do we want cash to be completely anonymous or not, there is something to be said for both.
  2. Did you check the discord channel? There is some discussion there, maybe it can help you further.. https://discord.gg/MJFnWX
  3. And also the Marshall Islands now has its own CBDC :-) https://sov.foundation/
  4. Can't it be both? As MGI has clients sending money from A to B, that requires also an up ramp (for A) and an off ramp (for B). So on the one hand you have clients that are connected, but on the other hand on a more technical part, the rails (up - and off ramp) are also there to be used. The idea in the end is that ILP is used in the proces, so you can make a chain of payments and exchanges. It could be that FlashFX makes use of the rails and technically only provides the up ramp AUD->USD. The receiving-client could be MXN, so USD->MXN is the next part of the chain. That part is technically provided by MGI. The issue that's left to be solved is how can the sending client (A) from FlashFX be known and connected with the receiving client (B) from MGI. That might be solved by an overall sort of phone book where RippleNet-enabled clients are listed and possible routings can be determined. As usual, of course guessing(tm) edit: actually I think the rails are not provided by FlashFx and MGI, but are provided by the exchanges (BTC_Markets, Bitstamp and Bitso), market makers and the Ripplenet software, and both FlashFX and MGI are sort of the end-users of the rails
  5. You do your avatar injustice, such a joyful fellow
  6. I think it is fair to say they have stopped the secret sauce that was trialled out with Moneygram. The reason why, it can be anything and the secret sauce can be anything. Didn't they say something like, we have proven that we can do it and that it works, now we want to focus on the small payments? To me the reason can be so positive and yes, it can also be negative. Apparently people here prefer to look at the negative. Let me try a positive theory: I still see the WU MGI take-over as the root cause. Ripple wants world dominance on cross-boarder payments, have the arrogance and the means to think they can pull it off and certainly do not want to spill the beans with WU. So they stop the secret sauce. Probably making use of a clause which was already there in their contract with MGI.
  7. Hammertoe explains how to host a static PayID on github: https://dev.to/hammertoe/hosting-a-payid-on-github-pages-5fp0 You can thank him by sending some XRP to pay$hammertoe.github.io
  8. I do hope they googled "payid" and that there is no trademark issue with https://payid.com.au/
  9. That depends on what people think the right price is. Yes it is :-) Take the dollar for example. Or any crypto if you think of it is as a currency. What if all non-US countries start to sell their dollar reserves, what would happen to the dollar price? That is true, it will be harder to manipulate. But if people truly believe the price should be higher, then it will go higher. That is not manipulation. Let's say price will go to $0.40 (twice as what is now). Does not mean that 8 billion USD (twice the current market cap) has to hit the XRP market. If everyone believes, the lower orders will vanish and higher orders will appear, the price will become $0.40. I'm not trying to convince you price will go higher. The same reasoning goes the other way, it can also go to $0.10
  10. Not that I believe in a price of 3 zero values, but thinking it can not happen because what comes in must comes out is not correct. If the order books are thin, you can bring the price to extreme levels with a relative little sum of money. And if not everybody sells (e.g. because they think it's worth the money) then those few that do sell, will get the 3 zero value price. Coinmarketcap says total cap of all crypto is: $264,585,950,432. This amount of money is not equal to the amount of fiat money put into the market. It is simply what is believed to be the value. It can go twice as high and it can go to zero.
  11. Yes I think we are more or less on the same line. So for the liquidity better to use small transactions (at least for now) and I think the large transactions we saw recently don't push the XRP price (yet).
  12. Hmm, yes maybe misread, you might be right. Just trying to grasp why they would want to focus on small transactions. I do think - let's call it my own view then - that XRP price is still purely speculative It's all in the mind of what people believe it's worth. A bit like the stock market, that reacts extremely on emotions.
  13. The thinking of DS: While liquidity is still scarce, better opt for many small transactions. If each transaction is a usage, then one big transaction does not add as much to the usage as many small.. The philosophy behind might be, that XRP price is not so much determined by supply and demand (XRP or any other cryptocurrency is not that scarce), but more by speculation
  14. O wait, I see it works different as I expected. With the bithomp-tools you can't submit a tx-blob. So either ripple should get their s3 back online or Bithomp should update the online bithomp to also connect to xrpl.ws. Or we should look at the specifics of the tx-blob, maybe the format is different as expected. But for privacy reasons maybe better wait for s3 or bithomp
  15. I only checked the online variant from bithomp there I found this error. When checking the bithomp-tools sources (since April 15) the newest version is connecting to xrpl.ws from Wietse, so you might try download the newest version from Bithomp and it might work. (If you want to work offline, use the bithomp-tools online on another PC)
  16. it (bithomp) is trying to connect to wss://s3.ripple.com and apparently that server is not online reachable. The error is: WebSocket connection to 'wss://s3.ripple.com/' failed: Error in connection establishment: net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID It is however using the same certificate as s2 and s1, of which both are working. So not sure what exactly is the issue, but that's the cause. Someone maintaining the s3.ripple.com service should probably look into it
  17. Probably a lot to take out of analyzing that article. As a first I think the timing strongly suggests WU/MGI overtake has something to do with it. I would further think, what is the difference between pumping $10.000 through a system or $100.000? The rails is the same. There is nothing but speculation here, but what if e.g. they negotiated with WU to keep the MGI/ODL progress alive, but at a much lower pace. WU knows if they kill the ODL flows at MGI, ODL will pop up somewhere else. Meanwhile WU can keep a closer look in Ripple's kitchen. For Ripple their is advantage in keeping on testing and building with these MGI corridors further and perhaps in the future WU will switch over anyway. On a more clearer note, they confirmed the 5 Corridors from utility-scan, one of them the EUR-USD:
  18. Is there a differentiation in destination tags on each corridor? If 25370527 is from Moneygram, from whom are the others (like e.g. 47175592)?
  19. It's not turned off, transactions are still flowing? It's just a lot less. If I may speculate, they switched off temporarily the ODL market makers, which leaves the liquidity provisioning to other instances.
  20. not sure the purpose, but check out https://xrplorer.com/
  21. Lot's of South Africa in his CV.. Interesting
  22. My guess is, that next to efficiency and perhaps also privacy reasons (batching obscures the individual transactions), it has to do with the amount of liquidity this corridor currently can handle. Re-balancing must be arranged for, which i think is easier to setup if you know in advance how much you are going to settle. And perhaps the batch size is somewhat equal to the size of a buffer that is kept apart and constantly used for settling the specific batch. So you want to keep this buffer size as small as possible (like that you don't want nostro/vosto locked up money), but big enough to be able to handle the ODL transactions. And next to that enough liquidity must be available to refill the buffer for the next round.
  23. There was a time we would compare Market Caps to see what the maximum possible price was. At the time I can remember comparing XRP/BTC market cap ratio would put the max price at around $0.70. I had never thought that the price would surpass that limit. Surprisingly it reached $4.30 .. If we compare current Market Caps now, the max price for XRP would be 19.8 times what the price is now, so it would be around $4.20 .. If we compare with the max ever BTC Market Cap (Jan. 2018) with current XRP Market Cap, XRP could be 35.2 times current price, so around $7.50 .. If we would take into account exaggeration from the market as in Jan. 2018, then $7.50 times $4.3 / $0.7 (~ 6.17), = a peak of around $46.00 .. But, you know, just some number mumbo jumbo and wishful thinking
  • Create New...