Jump to content

at3n

Member
  • Posts

    594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by at3n

  1. Nice. I wonder does this indicate confidence from the major validator owners that the price is unlikely to drop back to the 20-30c range for a sustained period. Does anyone know if any validators posted publicly about their reasons for voting this way?
  2. @lizshadehdg Even though your Gatehub wallet is self-custody (as in, you have access to the key), if you used Gatehub's built-in method for claiming Spark, then you will not have custody of the Spark when it's dropped, as the message key will have been set to point to one of Gatehub's own FLR wallets. The idea is that Gatehub will issue your share of Spark to your Gatehub wallet in the form of IOUs. This means that your SGB will end up in the same FLR wallet (controlled by Gatehub), so it's up to them whether they also issue SGB IOUs, or not. It's possible that they may choose some other method such as allowing you to specify your own FLR address for them to send SGB to directly, but it's out of your hands until they decide. On the other hand, if when claiming, you instead took your XRP secret key and used an external tool like XRP Toolkit to set your own FLR address, then that is where the Spark and SGB will go, and you will have control over it. It sounds like you didn't do this though.
  3. Well, you can't reverse the transaction, so if it has been sent to an account not under your control, then unfortunately you probably can't get it back, I'm sorry. If it was sent to an exchange, then you could contact them and see if you could get the destination account frozen, and start a process to try to get the XRP back. Look up the destination address on Bithomp and it may tell you if it's an exchange wallet. But it's equally important to also think about how this happened. Double check the app - is it the real XUMM app? If so, how did the attacker find you secret key? Is it stored anywhere online? Did you sign up for any "free XRP giveaways" (i.e. scams) recently? Might your phone be compromised? Might your email be compromised, etc. etc.
  4. For the benefit of newcomers who may have fallen victim to these scams: there is almost certainly no way that lawyers can recover your scammed funds. Please be careful before spending even more money chasing your losses.
  5. Correct. Simply setting a trustline creates no risk to your XRP. Of course you must be sure to use reputable software to create the trustlines, and don't blindly follow internet advice if you're not sure what you're doing. I think scammers will likely target people's lack of understanding of trustlines and give malicious instructions.
  6. I think that side of it is very cool, leveraging actual trust between users. But having it on the same system as XRPL gateways, where the IOUs are issued based on deposits, muddies the waters doesn't it? I wonder what the differences are, tax-wise, between say a BTC IOU issued to you by your friend, vs holding Gatehub BTC. And what your tax responsibility becomes when your Gatehub BTC ripples out and is replaced by purely trust-backed BTC? I guess sticking to your local legal tender would keep things easy, actually, I can see how that would work well.
  7. I suppose that it provides a benefit to the network as a whole by making everything more liquid, providing more paths between different assets. So by having it enabled, users would be contributing to the operation of the network, which some people would likely see as any incentive to use it (especially in the old days). But as you say, these days it does seem an outdated concept because of regulations and tax implications. Although using rippling alone, you would never receive a different currency than you sent (that would require an order/trade transaction). But there's really no reason for the average user to have it enabled now, and plenty of reasons not to.
  8. Originally, as rippling was enabled by default, I guess the intention was that no specific permission or interaction was needed for your account to become the intermediary for someone else's transaction. In theory, it would all be ok as long as you stay on top of your trustline settings. If an issuer goes out of business, stop trusting them, and rippling would no longer work for that IOU. But in reality, people need a "set and forget" system that they don't need to constantly monitor. So now that rippling is opt-in, by enabling rippling for a specific trustline you're actively agreeing to allow your account to be the middle-man for anyone's transactions through it. You're giving global permission, there's no way of locking that down to specifically Alive or Bob, and it will just happen when needed, and that's the intention.
  9. The rippling vulnerability is when you have two trustlines open for the same currency code but from two different issuers. If rippling is enabled, a third party can replace one of your currencies with the other without any interaction from you. This is a problem for example when one of the issuers has gone out of business, and therefore their IOUs are now worthless. Your valuable IOUs can then be replaced with worthless IOUs. This is still possible today, but it does require that specific set of circumstances to be carried out. You can set the maximum quantity of each IOU that you're happy to receive in total, so if you set that to be equal to the amount that you currently have, then no-one else will be able to send you any more until the amount you hold drops below the set amount.
  10. @Treehouse I think this is a reason that Ripple have changed from calling them IOUs to "issued currencies", because nowadays it more accurately reflects the more common use case, which is not really an IOU as you point out. In this case, I don't think that the ELS are representing any underlying asset, so no, there's no concept of "returning" them, they're just another crypto token, not an IOU. Also they are only true IOUs if there's some sort of contract that is agreed along with the ownership of the tokens. For example if I sent you Gatehub USD IOUs, Gathub only have a responsibility to repay you in real USD if you first sign up with them, and then return the IOUs. But you could still trade the IOUs with others so they still have value to you. It's just a name, IOU or issued currency, not really important. No, but they can freeze the assets so that the other party can't do anything with them.
  11. A trust line allows another account to send you a specific IOU ("issued currency") up to the amount specified by the trust line. By default there's no risk, but it does lock 5 XRP of your balance until you close the trustline. You should be sure that "rippling" does not become enabled for the trustline, as there are risks associated with that. By default it is disabled. They specified 510 million to be airdropped in the white paper, which is 51% of supply. They didn't say if that would be divided exactly between all claiming wallets, but they said that each claim will receive the same amount. Not technically, bearing in mind my points above. But the airdrop may have tax implications for you, but I don't think there's enough information to work that out yet.
  12. Please give more details. Where did you send your transaction? If you sent a transaction to an exchange, but you didn't include a tag, you will need to contact the exchange and explain what happened, and they will need you to prove that it was you who sent the transaction, and maybe they will return the funds to you. If this isn't the case, please give more explanation.
  13. @James1234456 What wallet software did you use to first create your account?
  14. If you open the json file with a text editor, does it contain the secret key to your XRP account (beginning with s)? If so, you could import that into another wallet?
  15. Coston is the Flare test network. Your spark will be airdropped to the main net, which presumably is the "Flare" app. I'm sure there will be more clear instructions published soon. No rush, as the main network isn't live yet.
  16. @SRod my point is that the dollar amount could be being calculated incorrectly due to some bug. When you select your actual XRP account in Ledger Live (in the "accounts" section, you should see your XRP wallet, and you can check its address using the Receive button). This wallet should show a quantity of XRP (the same amount shown in XRPScan), regardless of the dollar price. Can you see this?
  17. You say the balance in Ledger Live shows zero dollars. How about the number of XRP, does it show that?
  18. Can you see the XRP wallet address on Ledger Live? If not, you need to manually add it again. Just add a new XRP wallet with the Nano connected and you should see the old one again.
  19. The airdrop hasn't happened yet. The 12th June was only the deadline for claiming. The airdrop date is still unknown.
  20. Do you mean that the ETH account that you used to claim is not visible on Ledger Live anymore? You can just add new ETH accounts on Ledger Live and it will recreate the same addresses that you had the first time. There is no need to do this though, you won't see the spark come in to that wallet until Ledger releases a Flare app.
  21. Yes, that's correct, I'd only suggest using your 24 words as a last resort, and when you've reduced your risk as much as possible.
  22. If Ledger creates a Flare app then you shouldn't need to do anything with the 24 words, you'll be able to use Ledger Live or perhaps a 3rd party app online with the Nano connected. If it turns out that the Ledger app doesn't do what you need it to (or is not released quickly enough), then you may need to take the words and import them into some external tool to extract the private key. If you don't want to take the risk of exposing your 24 words like this, then consider creating a new ETH address outside of your Nano and changing the message key on the XRP wallet, today or tomorrow.
  23. Yes, that is a threat, and "hardware wallets" like Ledger are one alternative to exchanges. However, with a hardware wallet, you will be given a 12 or 24 word phrase to keep safe, and if you lose that, you could lose all of your coins. So, if you think you can keep the phrase safe, then good. But if you think you might lose the phrase, then a hardware wallet wouldn't be a good choice for you. I believe so. With XUMM you get 48 secret numbers instead of 12 words, but it's the same idea. XUMM is not an exchange, it's a software wallet. Generally, anything that isn't an exchange will give you some sort of code to record, and it's absolutely vital to never lose the code/phrase. The benefit of an exchange is that you don't need to do that, and they generally have recovery procedures in case you lose your password. But the downside is that the exchange may get hacked or go out of business. I suggest you do some research about different types of cryptocurrency wallets before proceeding, as it's very easy to make a mistake and lose your money.
  24. I don't think a 12 word phrase is a thing for Coinbase exchange. If you Google it you only see references to Coinbase Wallet or Coinbase Commerce. So I don't think you'll have any problems. Phrases are usually used for wallets which only you have the keys for. Coinbase is a centralised exchange, so wouldn't usually use something like that. You could test by generating a new wallet on e.g. the XUMM app and trying to withdraw 20 XRP from Coinbase to it (if 20 XRP is a small amount to you). Otherwise I'd suggest contacting their support to clarify. But I think you don't need a phrase at all.
  25. When are you asked to provide the 12 word phrase? I've never experienced that with Coinbase. May be forgetting though. If you can log in to Coinbase, you should be able to withdraw XRP to another wallet (including Ledger).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.