Jump to content

JoelKatz

Ripple Employee
  • Content Count

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    81

Everything posted by JoelKatz

  1. I would argue that you should store private information that only you care about in a database, not on a public ledger. But you could use the 8 least significant bits in the Expiration for this purpose. Presumably, you don't care about precisely when your offers expire.
  2. I don't agree. Laws are clubs, not scalpels. Trying to enforce truly de minimis violations of laws just erodes respect for the law. And given how bad and complex some laws are, this kind of enforcement (if universal) would lead to a dystopian society. It would also frustrate the specific object of the laws. Imagine, for example, if everyone who sped was pulled over and ticketed. How could you drive safely in a 60 zone without either driving much less than 60 or spending half your time staring at your speedometer? Enforcing every law violation would lead to disaster. See articles like this one: https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it Perhaps you're imagining some utopia where every law is a good law and everyone is familiar with all the laws they are likely to violate. But that's not the world we live in by a long stretch.
  3. The sequence number of the transaction that created the offer is encoded in the ledger in the offer object. Here's what an offer object looks like on the ledger: Notice the "Sequence" field. That's the sequence of the transaction that created the offer. Also, encoded into the "BookDirectory" (last 64 bits) is the rate at which the offer was placed. You can retrieve these with the "ledger_entry" RPC command. You can specify an "offer" object with an "account" and "seq".
  4. Why use a memo for this? If this is solely for your own internal use, why not just use a database?
  5. You can expect Ripple to aggressively defend its trademark "Ripple". Also, I have a huge problem with sites that insist I disable my security to access them. And make no mistake, AdBlockers are security software. Unless you're going to police your ads to ensure that they don't serve me malware (or pretend to be part of your site), and take responsibility if you fail, don't ask your site visitors to shut off their security to use your site. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-equifax-social-security-numbers-20171012-story.html
  6. I don't think XRP is particularly vulnerable to these kinds of threats. XRP is just so far ahead of every other asset except a few major ones, and those major ones are too diffusely held for anyone to have an incentive to promote them for this use case. Someone trying to target Bitcoin or Ethereum at this use case would have no revenue model. Someone trying to do this with a minor asset would have a long way to go just to catch up to where XRP and Ripple are now.
  7. I have no idea if this letter is authentic or not, but I do think I know what it means. What it's saying is that either Gatehub notified the UK Registrar that it was no longer doing business or (much more likely) failed to respond to two notices from the registrar. I don't think these notices are routine and I think they're typically sent if the registrar has some reason to think the company is no longer doing business. If I had to guess what the most likely meaning of this is, I'd guess that that Gatehub is closing a company called "GATEHUB LIMITED" and is doing business under a different entity. I believe this particular process process (the 1000(3) process referred to in the letter) is only used for companies that have stopped operating.
  8. I don't think that's a threat to XRP's use case. Ripple is trying to position XRP as an open, jurisdictionless asset that can bridge different currencies. If these assets are pegged to some country's fiat, I don't think they threaten this use case. Where they might be a threat is if they introduced an asset that behaved like XRP and targeted a similar use case. Every enterprise is vulnerable to someone else who tries to do the exact same thing but somehow manages to do it better. That is, of course, much easier said than done. I don't think that being a government or bank would be as asset here though because that would make it harder to position your asset as universal. If individual regions do make their own currencies flow more quickly and easily, that could be a benefit to Ripple. Fast payments and fast domestic settlement all help drive demand and provide the infrastructure for international settlement.
  9. You didn't specify "build_path" and you didn't specify any paths. So the transaction was submitted with no paths. A USD payment with no paths will only work if the recipient accepts USD issued by the sender or the sender owes USD to the recipient. No intermediaries, such as gateways, will be used since there would be no way to know which gateways to use. But there's another problem. The recipient you're trying to send to doesn't accept any USD as far as I can tell. The network has no idea what USD is (remember, no central authority), so unless you're trying to send USD to someone who has told the network something they consider to be USD, there is no way to pay them USD. The network won't take your word for it, only the recipient's word will do. (Otherwise you could pay someone worthless junk and claim it was USD. Then what are they supposed to do with the useless junk?) Also, if you don't specify a maximum amount to send, the payment will only work if it costs the exact face amount or less. Since the sender doesn't hold any USD of any kind, that's also an obstacle. You can pay using a different asset (such as XRP) assuming there's sufficient liquidity. But your payment is too simple to allow that. For payments other than XRP-to-XRP or direct issue/redeem transfers, it's strongly recommended to use a two-step process. First, use "path_find" to find paths. Then submit a payment based on the paths you were offered.
  10. I clarified with Santander. They were discussing the usefulness of Ripple by analogy with a telephone. The first telephone is useless. Once there is a second telephone, the first is useful. By analogy, when they were launching their pilot, Ripple didn't have enough bank adoption to be useful enough to them. So EarthPort was their second telephone. Endpoints have been added to RIpple since then, of course, and continue to be added. For us, and for them, the EarthPort partnership was extremely valuable as it allowed them to get the benefit of Ripple to many endpoints without banks at those endpoints having to adopt Ripple directly.
  11. Also, keep in mind what I said about the difference between the innovation folks and the transaction processing folks. Typically, the people at a bank that we're working with are the people in the actual banking operation processing live transactions. The innovation people are usually in a completely different part of the organization and their mission typically involves experimenting with all kinds of new technology.
  12. When you stop trusting an exchange, it is imperative that you tell Ripple this. Turning off Rippling alone is not sufficient -- you need to drop the trust amount to zero.
  13. Is there some place that I can find the context? They might be saying that Ripple was so good that they were willing to use it even though they had to use Earthport for the last mile due to a lack of adoption of Ripple by banks. And thus as Ripple is adopted more widely, it will become even more useful as they can substitute direct paths for Earthport. I've heard this sentiment expressed before. But I can't tell if that's what they're saying here. It absolutely true that the value proposition of Ripple to banks depends on the number of banks that have adopted Ripple.
  14. The idea that something becomes valuable just because it's difficult or expensive to make is just bogus. What gives something value is simply two things: 1) Demand. The more, the more it's worth. 2) Supply. The more, the less it's worth. We're used to things whose difficulty of creation affects the supply. But this is not the case with bitcoin. The supply of bitcoin is wholly determined by the agreed consensus rules.
  15. Is that really how non-profits are supposed to work? And who knows who holds lumens, beyond what the SDF holds.
  16. Almost every company is vulnerable to someone else who attempts to do exactly what they're doing and manages to do it better. This is much easier said than done.
  17. If it makes you feel better, just think about "megaXRP". Only 100,000 MXRP will ever exist and each one is worth about $202,000 today. Take that, bitcoin!
  18. There is one other possibility I can think of. I don't know how likely it is, but it is possible. Someone might have an agreement that's keyed to the price of a particular asset at a particular exchange at a particular time. In that case, they may be able to game that agreement by manipulating the price at that particular place and time. It would have to be a pretty big, and pretty dumb, agreement to be worth gaming. But it could be the case.
  19. I've never understood why someone would do this. Maybe if they were on a platform where they were leveraged or something and were forced, but otherwise, why do this? No matter how much confidence you've lost or how much you want to put your money somewhere else, can you possibly justify taking such a huge loss just to sell a few minutes faster?
  20. 1) Create an account to be the issuer. 2) Set the DefaultRipple flag on that account. 3) Have other accounts trust that account to issue USD. 4) Have the issuing account send USD to some of the accounts that trust it.
  21. I can't disagree with this more strongly. I disagree on every level in every possible way. People are people. There aren't "founders" and "investors", there are just people. Sometimes founders have bad ideas. You don't have to be a saint to be founder. Sometimes investors want to change the world. We have rules for how people come together in a common enterprise. We elect Directors, the Directors choose the CEO. Investors get board seats. We all know these rules and agree to them. If you're a founder who thinks he knows how to do everything right, then keep 51% of the stock and/or don't give investors Board seats. I'm not going to say that Ripple made all perfect decision. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Jed did. Jed brought on Chris as CEO. Jed and Chris brought on investors together, took their money, and ceded some control to them. It doesn't matter how much Jed thinks he was right, or even if he was 100% right, he made binding agreements to cede control to other people. Smart people. People he chose. And then he betrayed them. I am an employee and executive of Ripple. I am not at all solely motivated by money. I can get money almost anywhere. I work at Ripple because I believe in what I'm doing. I spoke to a lot of our investors in the early days. A lot of them invested in Ripple because the thought we might make the world a better place. I mean, do you really think that Google Ventures invested in Ripple to make money? How good or how bad a job you think we did or have been doing doesn't change any of that.
  22. Thanks for alerting me to his response. I hadn't noticed it. I responded to it. IMO, there is simply no justification for betraying your employees and investors except if you are aware of illegal or immoral actions on the part of the company or its management. Jed's claim now is that he was badly treated. Even accepting that's true for the sake of argument, it doesn't justify betraying your investors. It's not at all unusual for founders to get forced out of their own companies. And, again, I saw no evidence whatsoever of that and, from my perspective, we did everything we could to keep involved or, at least, neutral. But I can't prove a negative and it's certainly possible that he was treated badly when I wasn't around. Again, the proper reaction would have been to hang back and let the company make him a billionaire.
  23. It shouldn't happen that way because the pathfinding logic should only offer you a path if it thinks that path will work. It's always possible for something to change after pathfinding finished and before your transaction got submitted. But that should be rare. The original intent was to return tecPATH_DRY only if the paths could move no funds at all and to return tecPATH_PARTIAL if the paths could move some funds but not enough to complete the payment. This would have made troubleshooting a bit easier as you would immediately know whether your paths were invalid/bad/broken or just not liquid enough. But, unfortunately, that distinction got lost with some code changes.
  24. You're welcome. I opened a ticket to change the relaying behavior so that it will work in a cluster regardless of configuration. Update: I've submitted a pull request for a fix. https://github.com/ripple/rippled/pull/2253
×
×
  • Create New...