Jump to content

Dsimmo

Member
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Dsimmo last won the day on June 7 2016

Dsimmo had the most liked content!

About Dsimmo

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Ultimately, they must have cut ODL in its current form because it wasn't sustainable. The question is, why wasn't it sustainable? Here are my guess, which both relate to Ripple trying to protect the price of XRP: 1) the increased volume from ODL was resulting in a negative effect from Jed's sales (which are proportional to volume). They had to cut ODL volume so they could reduce Jed XRP sales. 2) much of the ODL market was being "incentivised" through their incentive scheme. The scheme was ultimately being funded through XRP sales. They had to cut the incentive scheme so they could reduce incentive scheme XRP sales.
  2. This sounds like the logic of a communist. Do you have any idea how markets function?
  3. As far as I'm aware, bitstamp was an xRapid (previous ODL name) enabled exchange. https://coinspectator.com/news/1333818/bitstamp-is-now-officially-licensed-to-facilitate-xrapid-payments-on-ripplenet
  4. Haha. No! I much prefer C++. I had to remind myself the exact interface of maloc because a C based GStreamer application I'm building
  5. Extremely interesting development right here. This may not hold in the near future, but the trend is our friend, and I expect the gap to widen as we go further out into the future https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/bitstamp/
  6. Thanks for the clarification. My mistake.
  7. What I don't understand is why there is capacity for unlimited memo size per transaction in the first place. The XRP ledger is a payment network, not a storage network. In my view, the ledger should have a small per transaction memo limit. Any hash of data could be stored, if need be, but keep the underlying off the chain... Storage networks can then be tied to the XRP ledger of need be, without necessary cost to the ledger
  8. Hi all. One of our greatest fud fighters on Twitter was @XRPTrump. Unfortunately, he seems to have disappeared lately. Anyone know where/why?
  9. Ok, so this is specific to checks, rather than a general property of amendments (although, presumably many amendments may have to be treated this way)
  10. @nikb I'm very interested in your comment that "once you activate [the amendment], you have to to carry it forever ...". It is very unclear to me why this is the case. Why can amendments not be entirely undone via a new amendment? What is the fundamental issue here? Is this property of amendments documented somewhere? I hope you have the time to respond, and would appreciate a detailed explanation :-)
  11. Where are the technical details of NikB's amendment?
  12. Brilliant. Thanks for this response. Are there any currently known issues with implementing account merge?
  13. 1) ability to reduce the number of deserted addresses on XRP ledger 2) the ability to spend those XRP you used to activate one of your N accounts @nikb @JoelKatz Would be good to get your input here. What are the pros and cons of adding an account merge feature like that used in XLM ledger?
×
×
  • Create New...