TexasHodlem

Yes. The signers list is unrelated to your master key. Disabling the latter doesn't affect usability on the list. I would still recommend keeping minimal funds in each wallet until you've verified that you can multi-sign a payment for each.

I spy SS396-only Daytona Yellow. I've owned two '69 El Caminos a few years apart, but sadly both times I had to abandon initial restoration plans.

@DavyJones - Consider that every second-layer solution accomplishes a change in ownership from party A to party B while some third party retains custody until settlement. It may not be the primary intent or function of the XRP ledger, but they included a DEx for a reason and this is how it's being used. I believe the parent-child relationship he's referring to is mostly regarding the relationship between BTC and something like Bitstamp.BTC on XRPL. Maybe "parent" isn't the ideal word, but it most definitely means "underlying asset/chain". Regardless, I love @MikeC317's characterization of this for the simple reason that it's a good way to anger Bitcoin maximalists who actually believe Lightning is the miracle of the future.

Enough of that. WhEn coInbAse? Wen lAmb-O?

This was regarding my statement that "There's a precedent for enforcement by pulling at the purse-strings of would-be attackers (fee scaling, reserves), and it's done the job so far.". I was referring to fee scaling to prevent spam, and the existence of a reserve to prevent bloat. We haven't had transaction spam clogging up the ledger lately, have we?

1) @nikb suggested using the incremental fee (5 xrp instead of 20). At such time that XRP is worth enough to reconsider reserves, both will likely get modified. Supposing a reserve change doesn't happen, then even recouping 15 XRP would still be a win. Someone gets 75% of their value back and ledger health improves. 2) One of the things I find most elegant about XRPL is that it doesn't require the full history to determine state. The n+1 ledger should only require the nth ledger and a set of transactions that occurred since. To maintain an integer representing account creations over n blocks, you'd actually need to store an array of n values, and only one of those values can be verified from a given ledger. I suppose it's possible to assume an even distribution of account creations and do a weighted average of the last number and the proposed ledger's account additions. That is, if you're worried about creations over ten ledgers, then take .9 * old value + .1 * new accounts. Still, it seems unnecessary. There's a precedent for enforcement by pulling at the purse-strings of would-be attackers (fee scaling, reserves), and it's done the job so far. @Sukrim - I'm glad someone else's mind went straight to Poloniex. They've been a blight on the ledger for far too long. In a less enlightened time, I sent funds to Poloniex to access a specific alt market. I cringe to think that I'm part of the problem. I couldn't care less about an extra 20 XRP, but I have dreamed of a day where Poloniex would stop abusing the ledger and improve their customer experience in one go. Nik's creating the opportunity.

Done.

FYI, Wikipedia didn't take part in this. Coil's browser plugin just keeps track of the time you spend on the site. Wikipedia could alter their code to enable WM though.

Uphold is excellent for small purchases. At $1000 or less, doing a $30 domestic wire, or $45 international wire might be more expensive than buying on Uphold. If you're depositing $10k to Kraken, then a $30 fee is nothing though. Uphold also has the advantage of locking in a price in real time. Unless you already have fiat online when a dip hits, it may be the only way to catch the sale. There's a use case for everything. Just be aware of the pros and cons.

I could be wrong, but I believe "RippleNet" is just a collection of ILP peers. xCurrent is a specific implementation of ILP+SPSP. That would imply that when a bank is added to RippleNet, they're using xCurrent. That doesn't stop them from *also* using xRapid at some point though.

As someone else said, anyone can close an escrow that was time based since it requires no further authentication beyond the passage of time. @Mercury - I think this is your wallet: rHR6zefnAZmsNvnVhK1MNqgrZ9oyKqQDia ...which activated this wallet in 2016: rJCDKXt4EBxbfA3kvxv895g8i9dzY62y1u ...which activated the wallet owned by someone with poor taste. The deposit that activated this wallet included the memo "Thank you for supporting the 2theMoon project and being part of the XRPChat community". It's one of us. SMH.

I think there's a good possibility this is related to market making. There's been a huge demand for lending (to short XRP :-() on Bitfinex, and the assets to lend have to come from somewhere.

Another 13.5M went out today. They're down to 136.422M XRP. Harpoon this SoB.

10M more was dumped today. They're down to 190M. rJfoXNyaaWAiag3R7t9oa3UqyRa663qTrc - 50M rH5AgjpTd6fNhTTA4ATnSpznAzsS94JjKh - 50M rMwhLJ8VvvZq2PsfC9PBigZY5UWDj5jpHr - 50M rLTsSbzhrr1MAXSWpzFBtS2bi4dFb6bpWL - 40M

Your join date says otherwise. Did it take you years to find XRPChat? Even if you have been around longer, and even if he misunderstood you, it doesn't help to make personal attacks. I happen to know that English isn't his first language, he's a software developer, and he's embedded into this space. Good job insulting an upstanding member of this community. I know this market is getting to everyone, but remember: peace, love, and zerp on.