Jump to content

mrak

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mrak

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. There are two answers to this question. Can you move around XRP so that it is "impossible" to link ownership of address A to address B? Depending on your threat level, as noted above, probably. There are several ways of doing this, including transferring your XRP to an exchange and withdrawing them to another address, converting them to other tokens on another exchange, using mixers, zcash, zcoin, trading off ledger with friends, and repeat. When you have your XRP in a "clean" address, can you come up with story as to how you acquired them? As soon as you want to use your cryptocurrency in a legal manner, you may have to prove provenance. For example, let's say you make more than 100,000 USD by speculation, you sell them, and deposit the proceeds in a bank account. Depending on where you live, and the amount, the bank will most likely ask you where they come from, and ask for some proof (i.e., bank transfers to an exchange, trading history, etc). Banks are very cautious about money laundering, and they are extra cautious when they know the money comes from crypto. So, it really depends on what you want to do.
  2. But is it technically possible NOW?
  3. It's my understanding that these ODL transactions at Bitstamp involve EUR>XRP and then XRP>USD. The XRP are not sent across the XRP ledger as they are traded in house on the same exchange. However, I have a question: In principle, could these ODL transactions use Bitstamp's EUR/USD market, and bypass XRP altogether? Most crypto exchanges don't have fiat/fiat pairs, but Bitstamp does. There is very little liquidity on the EUR/USD pair, but this could change in the future.
  4. One topic that isn't in this list are improvements for user privacy. In particular, it would be nice to be able to move from pseudonymity to true anonymity if one needed to. The easiest way to do this would be to implement ZeroCoin on the XRP ledger, where the anonymity set corresponds to the total number of zerocoins. I believe that this has been implemented on Ethereum, but I haven't tested it. Most other forms of proposed anonymity are weaker. Here are two use case scenarios: 1. Lets say you have a "work" account where you get paid in XRP, and that you would like to transfer this to another "savings" account that groups together all your other sources of income. You might not want people (like your boss or HR) to do a chain analysis to link these two accounts to find out how much money you really have. With zerocoin, you could transfer money from your work account to zerocoins, and then redeem the zerocoins in a different, unlinked account. 2. Lets say I want to give a blogger a tip, but I don't want them to know how much money is in my account. You could transfer the tip to zerocoins, and then redeem the zerocoins into the bloggers account. Note that chain analyses would still show how much money a given account sent to zerocoins, and it would also show how many zerocoins were redeemed to the other account. Everything is still transparent (unlike zerocash): it is just impossible to link one account to the other.
  5. So what is the status on coding this up and testing? Is this simply a proposal, or is it something we can expect to go live in 6 months?
  6. Well, that is an odd design choice.... In any case, the numbers still don't add up: If I sum the number of payments made between 2019-6-4 and 2019-6-10 I get 319,500. However, if you look at the weekly transactions by type chart, there are 517,266 payments for the week ending on 2019-6-10. Also, if you were to sum all the transactions for a week long period 2019-6-4 to 2019-6-10 you get 6,291,836 transactions, but the weekly chart by type lists 1,911,670, which is off by a factor of 3. Still confused.
  7. I think that a lot of you have probably seen the recent spikes in XRP payments on the xrpcharts: https://xrpcharts.ripple.com/#/metrics I've been trying to figure out what is going on, but it became clear that I actually don't understand what data are being plotted here. If you look at the first chart on the page for the number of transactions on 2019-6-10, you see that the number is about 770,000. If you look at the number of payments on this day the number is about 64,000. If you scroll down to transactions by type, the number of payments is about an order of magnitude greater: 517,000. If you sum all the transaction types you get about 1,843,000 transactions, which is inconsistent with the first number by more than a factor of 2. Does anyone understand what is really being plotted here? I initially assumed that payments were the transfer of XRP from one account to another. However, I now suspect that payments also include transfers of IOUs as well. Given that the number of payments are listed twice and are inconsistent, I am curious if this is because people are doing tests on the mainnet with worthless IOUs. Thanks!
  8. Is your Ripple wallet passphrase the same as your Gatehub login password? I am pretty confident that the two are different. When I imported my Ripple Trade wallet that was already encrypted, I do not recall them asking me to decrypt it, and then re-encrypt it with my Gatehub password (perhaps I am wrong).
  9. For those of you who were hacked: Could you let us know the characteristics of your Ripple wallet passphrase? (Like length and whether it might be in a password dictionary?). As far as I understand, the wallet passphrase is not the same thing as your Gatehub login (I am not about to log in to their site now to check this....)
  10. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is all a problem related to weak passwords. When I created my first wallet with Ripple trade, the application generated a secret key, and then encrypted this with a password that I provided. Given that no one had access to my wallet file, this was very secure. Given that it was encrypted, if someone got ahold of my computer and found the wallet file, I would still be protected, given that my password was 30 characters long and impossible to brute force. Then, Ripple asked us to move our wallets to Gatehub since they were no longer going to support Ripple Trade. Since my wallet was encrypted with a strong password, I didn't have a problem doing this. On top of that I placed some trust in Gatehub that their servers would be just as secure as my computer (this is obviously not true, it was the early days of crypto....) So, what appears to have happened are two things: Some early users encrypted their wallet with a bad password: Either less than ~8 characters long, or a passphrase that can be found in a password dictionary. Gatehub had a security breach and some encrypted wallet files were accessed. The perpetrator used a brute force password attack on these files offline, and once the wallet was decrypted, they accessed the secret key and drained the balance using a service that is not associated with gatehub. It is irrelevant if 2FA was enabled, because the hackers didn't need to log into your gatehub account: They already had the encrypted wallet file. If this is all true, it is difficult to say how responsible Gatehub is for storing your wallet that was encrypted with a weak password.
×
×
  • Create New...