Jump to content

pyskell

Member
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pyskell

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The 'd' in rippled stands for daemon. And a Daemon is a program that is intended to keep running in the background. It's pretty common in software. For example, Bitcoin's defacto daemon is bitcoind.
  2. I'd put 1/4th of it in Tezos' ICO. The rest I'd put in the mainstays, XRP, ETC, ETH, and BTC in that order. But this isn't investment advice
  3. 3 bananas per bundle of XRP. Edit: To clarify, a bundle is 1/2 of a bunch, and a bunch is 7/10ths of a barrel. Barrel volume depends a lot on what country you're in and what year it is.
  4. Maybe I'm missing it but I'm not sure how forking would resolve such a situation.
  5. So it's ~175-200 addresses (including EF's) to reach 51% of the total Ethereum value. Addresses as listed here: https://etherscan.io/accounts/a/ Please note that this list oddly excludes the EthDev address (https://etherscan.io/address/0xde0b295669a9fd93d5f28d9ec85e40f4cb697bae) which currently accounts for ~1% of total Ethereum but 2 years ago held ~12 million (or ~12% of total Ethereum based on the current supply). The Ethereum Foundation claims to have sold off most of it on the market for funding. The correct way to look at this is to take the accounts from: Regular Accounts - https://etherscan.io/accounts/a and Contract Accounts - https://etherscan.io/accounts/c I don't have the time to compute this at the moment but given the size of the some of the contract addresses it looks like you need even fewer addresses to achieve a 51% majority. The original Ethereum Foundation holdings: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9c81f44c29ff0226f835cd0a8a2f2a7eca6db52a711f8211b566fd15d3e0e8d4 This is further complicated by a few issues though: The largest addresses are exchanges, this is other people's money that they're likely not free to stake with and may be held liable if they do. So it's not entirely fair to consider it. Dropping off the big exchanges makes the 175-200 address take up 41% of the total market share. Someone may own more than one of these accounts. Related to point 1, 51% control via staking can likely be done with far less Ethereum as many people won't stake and Exchanges likely can't stake without permission of the depositors.
  6. Also I read earlier today that the current roadmap for Ethereum PoS is August/September. Which is oddly soon to me seeing as the code isn't finished (as you mentioned) and that's barely any time for live testing on the test network. https://medium.com/@pirapira/impressions-on-metropolis-fe64251b4175 Edit: That's the wrong link. Sorry can't find the right one at the moment.
  7. Firstly, I don't think there is a conscious effort to purposefully keep people uninformed about XRP. However, I do agree with your key argument on energy usage. In fact, if my link below is accurate then Ethereum is already over $1 million USD a day and Bitcoin is actually over $2 million. So simply PoW is completely unsustainable long term and even near term for both of these chains. Especially Bitcoin. They are both in trouble and I think they're going to have major growing pains getting the miners to release their grip. And once they do it may be that the miners have bled every last dollar they could from an injured network. PoS is no better as coin distribution is unbalanced on both networks and will make 51% attacks easier. Anyway here's the link. http://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption
  8. You'd run a node if you held a large stake of XRP or if your business had a use case for XRP. It gives you say in the network and is a very cheap way to provide extra security to your investment. Let's not kid ourselves, rippled isn't resource intensive and I can't imagine the bandwidth is much either (someone feel free to correct me). There's already perfectly good incentives to run a node. Bitcoin and other PoW chains are not at all comparable because they require massive electricity usage and beefy current-gen hardware.
  9. Not too confident in this given that their layout seems to be copied from Paxful. If they were really launching in 2 weeks I'd imagine their website design would be near final. Then the website itself seems to be full of fake links to fake product listings or something? Case in point, here's the listing for a Refrigerator, which shows pictures of a Convenience Store, with a text description for a Car. Not sure what any of this has to do with crypto currencies. http://coinket.com/ad/refrigerator-for-sale/ And there's a "Packages" section for some sort of subscription service? The entire thing looks like a slightly fleshed out example of a website template.
  10. @jmar42 Ok so as long as XRP has a stable value then banks may be more likely to use it for value transfers and ILPs may end up being used for Fiat -> XRP? That makes sense.
  11. To be fair, you're also trusting that offline generator is behaving correctly. There's nothing to stop it from not using the Ripple library for various steps. One precaution is to generate it on an offline computer and after you copy down the wallet to a piece of paper or elsewhere to then erase the computer. That at least removes the possibility of the program uploading your private key to their servers. Which is something that happened today with Ethereum Chamber.
  12. @Dennis Thanks that clarified a lot. However, to your first point, it seems as if a bank in Japan wanted to send USD they would have an easy time finding someone (using ILP or traditional channels) to perform the transaction from JPY To USD and not need XRP in-between. Then for a more complex excjange, given 2 hops, say CHF -> USD -> JPY, such a transaction wouldn't benefit from XRP, since it's then CHF -> XRP -> JPY. So presumably it's the same amount of transfer fees. The benefit really comes at 3+ hops, which seems unlikely given only 18 pairs used in the majority of transactions. So given that I'm trying to understand what other benefits banks care about. Is the main value proposition to them transfer times when using XRP? Or are fees still reduced somewhere in the process that I am missing?
  13. So it seems to me that, with ILP, you could create a set of Ledgers that connect basically every available currency/Connector. Establishing a network that transfers value without the need for a base currency such as XRP. Why would or wouldn't they do this?
  14. Neat. Fun fact, replace "triskelion" with "fidget spinner" and it still makes sense.
×
×
  • Create New...