lucky

Member
  • Content count

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

lucky last won the day on November 19 2016

lucky had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About lucky

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday
  1. I don’t think there are enough users to support two forums. Unless you bring something fresh to the table (yet another forum from outdated template is not), I see no added value in your initiative: it does not solve any problem, instead it creates one.
  2. He deserves much more than that.
  3. The RCL "auction hammer" bangs every ~3.75 seconds, at which bids are linked to offers, and executed in single batch. In that batch paths can form between multiple traders, to exchange value between assets that do not need to be traded against each other directly.
  4. Public forums need collaborative volume control, not individual mute switch because you'd be missing part of the public conversation. Working on it...
  5. The point @BTR is making is that there is not necessarily such correlation. It is very, very, very unlikely that there are 380,000 users today. 10,000 sounds more likely. And when Ripple is fully deployed, the number of users can be a million with the same number of accounts. So: the number of accounts does not tell much, its just "a number".
  6. FUD, see earlier discussion on this forum for thorough debunking:
  7. yummie! Great stuff! [ steve ballmer developers video]
  8. This has been the published strategy for a long time already. To quote @JoeKatz, November 11: The only thing that worries me, and please, Ripple, enlighten us, is that I am reading ILP-enabled RCL will not be ready before 2018. Is this true?
  9. If Swift was indeed a central database, the hacks could have been neutralized by a simple rollback.Not being able to rollback was the problem here, not the cause. Also in the Ripple network (and also with Bitcoin), ultimately there are fallable humans entering data via potentially unsafe computers, possibly resulting in unwanted transactions. Immutability does not help there, on the contrary. But Ripple's freeze feature maybe does.
  10. I do not expect anyone at this forum to agree with me. But my argumentation could certainly be used to twist Jed's nut a bit while negotiating a deal to transfer his funds favorably to an owner that is not hostile to Ripple, to someone who uses the aquired funds as originally intended: to advance the project, not to work against it. (Oh and by the way, HE broke the initial agreement with the 1M Bitstamp dump)
  11. I understand the sentiment, which is essentially the same that led to Ethereum Classic. However, it is in "the spirit of the network" which you have helped to build that Jed's billions are only safe as long as 80% of validating nodes agree with your "no, No, NO". Two weeks after 80% say "yes, Yes, YES", he's out. That's your own consensus at work. This is good, I completely agree with that mechanism, it's brilliant! It discourages "network members" to behave in a way that is harming >= 80% of the network. 80% is not a whim.
  12. I expect the "D" part in DLT to be implemented this year, and from then on, the ledger will be controlled by entities without any legal obligations to Jed. Even just the possibility to do this, may be sufficient to persuade Jed at some point in selling his tokens back to Ripple or to a Ripple partner. Or persuade him not to use his weekly "allowance" to disrupt the market, as I think he has been doing so far. From top of my head, during the last big spike the arrangement entitled him to sell > 25 million in one week, and we've seen the Poloniex rally at that time completely squashed with aggressive dumps of less that amount. Preventing to break the psychological 0.01 barrier.