Jump to content

petke9

Member
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About petke9

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I look at it this way: Pre-mined coins coming out of escrow the year 2050, should be treated the same as mined coins coming out in 2050. The anticipation of the coins reaching the open market, should affect the current market price the same.
  2. I tend to agree that volume often is a a better metric of the size of a market, than market cap is. However pre-mined vs mined is only a implementation detail. It doesn't matter when the coins are mined. Its only when (or in anticipation) of the coins reaching the open market that it affect the price. After all, its the willing buyers and sellers on the open market at any one time, that set the market price. Think of it this way. The fed prints dollars. It could print a dollar every time it needs a one. Or it could pre-print many decades worth in one go, but release them one at a time as needed. Its only the logistics that are different, but the effects on market price is the same. Premined vs mined cryptocins can be seen much the same.
  3. Excuse my ignorance here. If I understand you correctly, you want someone to update the source for the firmware at https://github.com/LedgerHQ/ledger-app-xrp/tree/master/src to support OfferCreate (so you can then use that functionality from a javascript frontend app)? If someone did that then how would one go about installing the modified firmware on the nano ledger? Can users install it themselves, or does the modified source have to be approved by LedgetHQ?
  4. I watched the video. (When they discussed BFT, I think they mean XRP's consensus protocol) The difference, according to them, is who creates the list of trusted validator nodes. If a) the list of trusted validators nodes is decided by one central authority, or if b) each validator node can keep its own list of which other validator nodes it trusts. As far as i'm aware both stellar and xrp work the same way here, as in the second option. With xrp, If the validator nodes keep very different trusted lists it could cause fork in xrp, at least theoretically. I believe the new xrp protocol named "Cobalt" is about solving this. Edit: https://ripple.com/insights/continued-decentralization-xrp-ledger-consensus-protocol/ Edit2:
  5. If you ever used gatehub or similar decentralized exchange built around the ripple ledger you will have used this. When you buy xrp on gatehub, the actual xrp asset gets transferred to your wallet at once. You can see your xrp balance on the ripple ledger change (say by using the 3rd party ripple browser on bithomp.com). However when you buy any other digital asset, like bitcoin, on gatehub. You will also see your bitcoin balance on the ripple ledger change. But thats not actual bitcoins, its IOU's of bitcoin. Those IOU's only gets exchanged for real bitcoin by the gateway (that you bought the IOU from to begin with), when you try and send the bitcoins somewhere. It doesn't have to be bitcoin IOU, the ripple ledger supports any IOU's in theory. Even beer credits from my uncle bob. The ripple ledger is like a perfect fit for ICO's. Not sure how they managed to avoid a bunch of dodgy coins getting listed on the ripple ledger.
  6. I dont think it makes sense for ripple to buy a payment provider. That would make other payment providers its competition. Those competitors would not want to use ripples software after that. Microsoft tried something like that, by buying nokia. Afterwards samsung and the rest, didn't want to use the windows mobile operating system any more.
  7. Thanks for your reply. Im trying to figure this out, but im not sure I got it right. But thats how i think it works also. Debt is IOUs. Said another way: The way I think xcurrent works. A bank has a internal ledger (database) that keeps track of how much money it owes to each of its customers. Conceptually a bank can send payments to the other, by each bank having an account at the other bank. When a payment is sent, both the banks simply adjust their internal ledgers with regard to how much USD it owes the other bank. So bank BANK_B ends up with a lot of BANK_A_USD_IOU on their books/ledger, and vice versa. xcurrent helps the banks synchronize the updating of their internal ledgers at the same time. I guess at some point the banks can settle their debts with each other, so that BANK_A_USD_IOU can be exchanged for something more trustworthy like BIG_CLEARING_BANK_USD_IOU, or even CENTRALBANK_USD_IOU (which is about as close to real fiat money as it gets). I dont think xcurrent helps with this (as xcurrent is about payment but not settlement?) Anyone, please correct me here in anything I got wrong.
  8. I heard mentioned here that xcurrent liquidity will help xrapid liquidity. I dont see how that could work. Can someone explain? For example, the liquidity needed for xcurrent is in the following currency pair markets: "[BANK_A_USD_IOU]<->[BANK_B_USD_IOU]", "[BANK_A_EUR_IOU]<->[BANK_B_EUR_IOU]" Similarly, the liquidity needed for xrapid is in the following currency pair markets: "[BANK_A_USD_IOU]<->[XRP]", "[BANK_B_USD_IOU]<->[XRP]", "[BANK_A_EUR_IOU]<->[XRP]", "[BANK_B_EUR_IOU]<->[XRP]" So the liquidity that xcurrent and xraid uses are in completely different (currency pair) markets. One leg of the currency pair markets are the same in both xrapid and xcurrent (say BANK_A_USD_IOU), but I dont see how that makes a difference
  9. I googled "Ripple Effect". Morgan Stanley has used that expression since at least 2005. Example: https://www.jpmorgan.com/pdfdoc/jpmc/community/04commPart.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...