Alloy Networks

The "two weeks" is the time frame for an amendment to become active after achieving 80% majority votes. Please ignore that warning and stay on 1.8.5 for now.

Having read this both here and in one on one discussions with the OP, I am inclined to treat this as something that can and will be exploited. Thanks for...

Also please share your number of peers and disk type.

Given the fact that this is a very large code base that touches on the payment engine at multiple points, I would not be comfortable with this being merged without...

> Given the fact that this is a very large code base that touches on the payment engine at multiple points, I would not be comfortable with this being merged...

As 2.1.0 is just around the corner, this PR should be merged into the release after that - 2.2.0.

> Good catch @jscottbranson! I'm adding this "request changes" review, so your comment doesn't get lost. > > To reiterate, `zaphod.alloy.ee` needs to be removed from `cfg/rippled-example.cfg` and `cfg/rippled-reporting.cfg`. The...

I would prefer more testing before making it as default. There could be memory and cpu increases that may affect some nodes. I will enable it on a portion of...

> Are there any updates @alloynetworks and @intelliot??? I don’t see any performance issues on my nodes. But for reference these are all high end servers with a minimum of...

IMO, this will only work if the ‘rippled’ instance has a valid certificate. I don’t think you can redirect without that first being evaluated.