Jump to content

Xpring invested projects


yxxyun
 Share

Recommended Posts

@TiffanyHayden sad to hear about personal attacks. We should be able to discuss respectfully about different topics and bring light into multiple aspects. However, yea, that's sadly the culture we're living. One of the major reasons I prefer to stay in background.
Very kind you jumped in with your own validator, but what did you expected. Were your expectation maybe too high? As mentioned before, priorities in a competitive area may change quickly. I'm sure Ripple is aware of that specific situation now. Was it just luck that the network didn't halt? Maybe. Maybe there was a disaster plan. We can just speculate, and speculation rarely leads to meaningful results.

Over the last several pages you mentioned the almost halt again and again. Important situation of course, but let's continue. Don't get my wrong, it's an important note. However, I prefer to go further instead saying the same over and over again.


@TiffanyHayden (second post) I'm unsure if you really wanted to choose that tone how I read it. I'm not interessted in such an offensiv way of talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jerrybo said:

We should be able to discuss respectfully

It's disrespectful and actually a little suspicious that you think despite lacking base knowledge of the XRP Ledger, you think it's ok to interrupt somebody who does to try and blow sunshine up the asses of anybody watching from home.

If things are as I say they are, the biggest mystery is why doesn't anyone else know? Is it because there is always an anonymous account trying to refute what I say despite COMPLETELY lacking the the ability to do so? 

That was a rhetorical question. Your input isn't needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe my words weren't the best chosen. Maybe they were interpreted wrongly. English isn't my native language.

In my opinion, there are often multiple aspects to consider if you think about a topic. Depending on the point of view, other aspects maybe appear only after we take another view. As already told, I'm not interested in such a way of talk as I read it. Maybe I get that wrongly. Thanks for sharing your minds in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jerrybo said:

Maybe my words weren't the best chosen. Maybe they were interpreted wrongly. English isn't my native language.

In my opinion, there are often multiple aspects to consider if you think about a topic. Depending on the point of view, other aspects maybe appear only after we take another view. As already told, I'm not interested in such a way of talk as I read it. Maybe I get that wrongly. Thanks for sharing your minds in this thread.

Do you what the beauty of the blockchain is? You don't have to guess, or wonder, or hope, or believe. YOU CAN VERIFY. And every time you don't is a deliberate choice to remain ignorant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the viewpoint Tiffany, I think you've made some great points there in a way many other people didn't see before. I think the previous hatred on twitter stems from that misunderstanding, and it's much harder to make such large posts on there, it will get lost + it's much more fractured.

 

If this is really true, it's really worrying and I have to agree, the XRPL probably does need more capital input, if there is a fragility on the network, by the time this becomes evident with rising transactions it could do irreparable reputational damage to the ecosystem and trust that has taken so long to build. The only non-malign reason why little capital has gone into this previously that I can think of is perhaps people who run xPring/all the RippleNet funds don't think its an issue you need to worry about as TPS is really low right now, but as I mentioned earlier this could become an issue quickly and it may be too late to rectify by the time it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TiffanyHayden said:

that the person who argued the most that XRP wasn't permissioned was shutout by a gatekeeper on the first opportunity faster than you can say CENTRALIZATION. And I asked so many times what objective criteria is being used to select validators to add to the dUNL and I wasn't even worthy of a reply. 

So the master plan was to increase the slowly increase from 5 Ripple validators to 35 validators whereby first we increase to something like 25 Ripple validators and then add other community validators. For each 2 community validators added, we remove 1 Ripple validator. That plan has been laid out by David Schwartz and has been executed as such. Checking on a link about this strategy I found this: 

https://ripple.com/insights/how-we-are-further-decentralizing-the-ripple-consensus-ledger-rcl-to-bolster-robustness-for-enterprise-use/

To quote from that artikel

Quote

Ripple validators are chosen based on their merit as validators. That is to say, the most reliable, reputable, stable and secure validators will tend to appear on most people’s UNLs.

Based on that quote there would be no reason not to add your validator to the dUNL. 

However, and you probably get more angry (sorry not meaning to, just want to offer a possible reasoning), but if I would get into the head of the person who decided on this, I think the reasoning could be as follows: a) follow the master plan and slowly add community validators. Because nr1 on agenda, we must show we are not centralized, diversify from Ripple as much as possible. And maybe nr2 on agenda, show that validators have such a small role in the consensus, they only determine the order of tx's. So, for Nr2 choose validators that are held up by enthusiastic community members. specifically not (yet?) the big financial institutions, because it is not important who are the validators. Nr1 is all about moving away from Ripple control. That is where I think you would not make the perfect candidate, because of your involvement with a lead dev from xrpl/Ripple. That bond is too close and people would argue that your validator is still sort of Ripple controlled. Just my 2cts. Don't get angry. And don't break up, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dario_o said:

but the "small role" it's the core of the consensus protocol :D

Yes, maybe poor choice of how to make the point, but meaning, in the whole process, it is only this ordening of transactions that is done by the validators. They can't decide on anything else then the ordening. They can't fake transactions, they can't create extra XRP, they can't sensor transactions - unless they collude. So basically anybody can do it, as long as they do it.  (And I am ignoring the amendment process..)

Edited by jn_r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • 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.