Jump to content

velmet

Member
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About velmet

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Additionally besides SEC viewing XRP as security in large part due to Ripple holding overwhelming amount, there's also similar issue in how a lot of crypto enthusiasts and larger general public is viewing XRPL ecosystem as well, therefore this Ripple hegemony is one of the causes preventing from developing actual real community similar to other large crypto communities (like ETH).
  2. I do not think anyone here is suggesting protocol changes for validators to delete just any account balance. We specifically discussing Ripple escrow stash and the amendment would be specifically referring to these escrow addresses of Ripple. If amendment passes validators would not be able to restrict access or delete balances of any other addresses. In this way it is similar to Ethereum DAO fork, which restricted access to the hacker. It did not give miners ability to just willy-nilly delete someone's balances. Ethereum had a problem with DAO hacker, we have a problem with Ripple overwhelmin
  3. https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-will-suspend-trading-in-xrp-on-january-19-2e09652dbf57
  4. After court decision it will be too late if it is declared a security. The point is to do it now in order to hopefully prevent XRP being declared as security as it is right this moment. Remember reading SEC comments that they can deem some crypto to be a security for some initial time period, but if there's enough decentralization after some time, the token can be deemed not a security anymore. So decentralization is key here. Burning escrow will help with XRP supply decentralization. It is absolutely obvious now that Ripple has no idea on what to do with all this XRP except for dump it o
  5. For me it's even less. Just looked as an example to DeletableAccounts (id CF61501174E29B3C7A63E65FFCEF4EA882BD22B449490AB453701DCA7EEAF0B3) amendment on github on rippled repo. There's nothing useful if you google by id. On github all the code related to this amendment seems like part of regular rippled code and not a separate module. How is it distinguished from all other code and how it relates to all this voting process is beyond me.
  6. There is absolutely no point in asking or demanding them anything. For the most part they have not been interested in what community has to say since ~2014 (around the time Jed left), when they decided to start chasing banks and went for this so called "bottom down" approach. Instead of pointlessly asking or demanding anything, better lets put in some real work. Therefore thread:
  7. We need to get this party started ASAP. Anyone with decent C++ experience? Knowledge of rippled and amendment development?
  8. I do not think Ripple would do that because it would be seen as attempting to control the network and neglect any claims of theirs about decentralization which is the opposite they would like to achieve in light of the recent events.
  9. What I was trying to say is if Ripple holds only small amount of XRP (5B for example, the amount they have in non-escrow now), instead of total 50B, it would be less likely they would declare that XRP is a security right know, because obviously network is not in the hands of Ripple and they do not control overwhelming amount of XRP anymore. Only that historically it perhaps was a security (looking from historical Ripple dealings perspective).
  10. Personally I think it would be best to burn Ripple escrow 45B XRP with an amendment as discussed in this thread: That way, if the amendment passes, we would still have all the validators and no need for forks.
  11. Personally, I think it would be easiest to find consensus (get validators on board with this) to burn the escrow part of Ripple holdings (45B XRP). I think it could be a bit harder to find consensus if we start discussing some other addresses (like Jed stash). We should do this as fast as possible, so as to help SEC not to declare it security in final ruling as XRP stands today. Anyone knows how to code this?
  12. If you look at individual ledgers during roughly an hour this occurred it seems that ledgers closed every 3.5 seconds as usual but there were no transactions in at least the ledgers I have looked during this period. Perhaps simply this is due to Ripple public S1 cluster malfunctioning (since most services/people still use it instead of their own node or alternative public nodes)?
  13. My guess it is a leftover from the old days way back when XRP was not really listed as trading pair on Bitstamp but they did have option to buy XRP with USD so that the bought amount was deposited straight to your Ripple address (they no longer have this feature). They had quite large markup on the price though when buying with this feature (as compare with buying on Ripple ledger).
  14. That could explain why XRP was more expensive than elsewhere on Polo in recent days...
  15. They are BS'ing you. If you sent those XRP to correct address, they did recieve it and are in possession of it. They should credit you your XRP! Edit: They should credit you after finding out which tag you should have specified
×
×
  • 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.