Jump to content
GiantGox

A Big Update!

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, tomb said:

@nikb Can you attempt to answer the question above so they don't kill me for wasting an answer on my stupid question?

At times I picture them watching our conversation, big smile on their face, enjoying our confusion and struggles to understand what they (partly) reveal. It's torture :tease:(but also fun)

Edited by jn_r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tulo said:

It seems Ripple is pushing more for ILP than for RCL. It's a good choice since I think it is what banks need and want...privacy and their private ledgers.

Agreed.  No only am I not worried, this new collateral is just what was needed to supercharge adoption of the new protocol - very exciting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoelKatz said:

The challenge for Ripple will be to promote ILP, get XRP spreads down, and then help FIs handle the regulatory/compliance issues.

get XRP spreads down would mean bring on the market makers and liquidity, which i see happening in the near future, derivatives at the end of this month should help too :) 

This is how I understand it, ILP will be used more locally as in the same jurisdiction and compliance wise for the shortest and cheapest path, but will opt for ripple and XRP for cross-border and more complex / longer paths where RCL is the cheapest and makes the most sense for trust and escrow between ledgers and connectors. 

Doesn't ripple and XRP make the most sense for ILP universal mode where the funds are escrowed in a counterpartyless asset and consensus ledger that is not a single point of failure?

What are the pros and cons of using an ILP enabled ledger like ripple with either atomic mode or universal? I figured atomic transactions will most likely not flow through RCL because they will be mostly private and have more specified escrow / notaries, but i guess could also opt for RCL when going cross-border?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, when is it most efficient to use RCL with ILP, atomic or universal?

Edited by rippleric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most efficient may not be technical but regulation based. If privacy and legality of none fiat based currencies are in question a path that is fully controlled and known might be the best route. Banks after all do not always follow the easiest or simplest routes.


Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mDuo13 said:

To use Atomic Mode, everyone involved in the atomic-mode transaction has to agree on a set of ILP Notaries (also called ILP Validators, since they serve a kind of similar role to rippled validators) to approve and coordinate the transactions. The notaries can be picked differently for each transaction, if desired, so you don't have to continue to agree on the same notaries in the long term, but you do need to agree for the one transaction.

How are those notaries picked? I mean, obviously the parties must agree on one/them, but how does it occur; is it somewhat automated? I'm just wondering how seamless the whole thing is from a user perspective. As you say it's an optional setup/tinkering per transaction. But if you're doing hundreds of transactions with one or two known parties, presumably you'd just use the same notary(ies) for the foreseeable. Does the set up require knowledge of command line etc, or is it all part of a nice UX design?

Edited by rippledigital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×