Jump to content


Ripple Employee
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JoelKatz

  1. Rippled currently stores all validations that it trusts in a database, but there's no specific tool to access those stored validations. Theoretically, a validation for a ledger is implicitly a validation of all its prior ledgers.
  2. You can use the "subscribe" API to subscribe to the "validations" stream using a websocket connection. You will receive a "validationReceived" notification every time the server receives a new, current validation. The code change is here: https://github.com/ripple/rippled/commit/5bad2db667d8953e97d4ea49da05c708c025fb2e You can also go to this URL: https://www.websocket.org/echo.html Check the "Use secure Websocket" and set the URL to "wss://s1.ripple.com", push connect. In the message field, paste this: Hit Send and watch the validations stream at you.
  3. Well, the obvious one is to ground counterpartyless assets like XRP. There's also applications other than assets, such as public registries of all kinds. For counterparty assets on a public ledger, the case is a bit harder to make I think. Such systems can be compliance-friendly with features like freeze and requiring authorization to hold assets. But they prevent the issuer from acting in secret. The issuer can freeze your assets, but if they do so for even a second, there will be a public record of that action. The rules the asset follows are well-known and enforced -- the issuer cannot arbitrarily violate or change them, whether for good or for evil. The total obligations of the issuer are publicly visible. Ownership of assets can easily be proven by whoever holds them.
  4. I would love to hear the best arguments people can muster for why public ledgers are important and valuable (other than for grounding counterpartyless assets like XRP and BTC) in a world where ILP allows any combination of public and private ledgers to interoperate.
  5. If you have funds on an ILP-enabled ledger, ILP eliminates any technical obstacles you might have to using any connector (even if you don't trust it) to make a payment on any other ILP-enabled ledger. Your bank might show you a set of connectors that it recommends, but they can't stop you from discovering other connectors in other ways. Of course, they might limit the ledgers you can pay to or through or the connectors you can use for risk or compliance reasons. But ILP eliminates the technical obstacles.
  6. This is just the suspended payment on the Ripple ledger portion. Typically, this would occur inside an ILP transaction. Here the "Sender" is whoever holds the funds on the ledger, "Recipient" is whoever should get those funds, and "executer" is the party executing the transaction: Sender makes a suspended payment, specifying both the release condition and the release time. Executer inspects the payment to make sure it's acceptable to him. If not, he stops participating. Executer performs the rest of his obligations under the agreement and gets the release code. Executer (or recipient) performs a transaction on the Ripple ledger to release the suspended payment and deliver funds to the recipient. On a failure, the sender can recover his funds at the release time.
  7. You're asking how ConnectorB gets XRP while giving an example where ConnectorB gets XRP. In an ILP world, likely the primary way people would get XRP would be by receiving it in trade for some other asset in an interledger transaction. As far as XRP is concerned, every transfer of XRP is just a shuffling around of XRP. Whether the movement of the other asset takes place on the public ledger or not really doesn't make any difference.
  8. I think you'll see Ripple focusing on banks and financial institutions. We still think that they will get the biggest benefits in the short term and that benefits to other groups are greatly increased by bank and FI adoption. That doesn't mean we don't think other strategies make sense or that other groups can't get benefits from ILP. That just seems where we can get the greatest return for resources expended in the short term. We hope that through standardization, openness, and evangelism, we can also encourage others to promote ILP to groups that can get benefits that Ripple may not be best positioned to target. You'll be seeing a lot more of our strategy in the very, very near future.
  9. I agree that central banks facilitating interbank transfers using ILP makes a lot of sense for a high-speed, low-cost, domestic funds transfer system. The exact mechanism could vary, but I think the most natural one is where the central bank operates a connector that effectively has credit on each of the bank's ledgers. Just as order book connectors also have internal ledger-like state (offers, market maker balances, and so on), central bank connectors would have ledger-like state, that being the credit/debit balance of each bank. Banks would have funds on deposit or credit at the central bank. So if a customer at BankA makes a payment to a customer at BankB, ILP would be used to debit the customer at BankA (crediting BankA's balance with the central bank) and to credit the customer at BankB (debiting BankB's balance with the central bank). This would be payment without settlement, and banks would have to settle net imbalances with their central banks (possibly also using ILP).
  10. I mean that XRP transfers will take place on the RCL, just as Bitcoin transfers take place on the blockchain. Transfers can, of course, also take place on other systems, but the public database is the ultimate authority.
  11. The bulk of the cost comes from the time the money is in transit. This means both the loss of the use of funds while they're in transit and the need to pre-fund accounts with lower transit time to destinations. Are you suggesting that banks will complete payments in seconds but nevertheless hold funds for days? The next biggest factor of cost comes from the failure rate of international transfers. Are you suggesting payments would succeed, but banks would still not tell customers just to keep their customers' costs up? That doesn't seem very plausible either. The savings come from fundamental changes in the way the system works, not from rates that are a tiny bit less.
  12. Of course it will continue to ground XRP. But also, anyone who would prefer to issue an asset that trades on a public ledger will use it. I don't think it's a huge problem if RCL's role shrinks to the point that ultimately all it does is ground XRP. Perhaps assets issued on public ledgers will thrive once it becomes easier to bridge them to other assets.
  • Create New...