TexasHodlem

Remote work came up in the thread. For those who aren't aware, Ripple's software development team is fairly distributed at least. For instance, Nik works remotely from Las Vegas last I heard. They don't even need to adapt to something new. As for the rest of the employees, well, San Francisco and New York City happen to be two lousy places to have offices right now.

@DirectorCoulson A less cynical party might suggest that the growing MXN corridor can benefit from a local, highly-liquid derivatives market. I didn't mean to imply that I thought BitMEX would have a direct impact on the price, in either direction. This is a long time coming, and it's good to see demand for more financial instruments, especially those trading against the USD spot price, not against BTC.

https://blog.bitmex.com/announcing-the-new-xrpusd-swap-and-delisting-bitmex-up-bitmex-down-contracts/

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.