Wo Jake
Wo Jake
Using the implementation used on xrpl.js would be fine (i guess)
Are there anything that you'd like to see on this PR for it to be approved @jonathanlei ?
Oops, I forgotten about the fact that users need to add trust lines to their account. Sending TrustSet transactions on behalf of the user would work, I guess we have...
@mDuo13 I did some testing with the faucet in testnet/devnet, when a user requests a new faucet, the faucet's main wallet sends 1000 XRP to the newly generated wallet, this...
> > > Isn't this what `Checks` are made for? The faucet could on demand send out checks to a specified address and the user there just needs to cash...
https://github.com/XRPLF/xrpl-py/pull/422/files#diff-135e936f0cbcc254da5587f15e7410bd6f6322de391b35ab26998e4ae42d5041R14 Suggestion: Instead of asking for both assets, if asset1 or asset2 is missing: Assume that the missing field is XRP. Or maybe even this (it's better): https://xrpl-py.readthedocs.io/en/stable/source/xrpl.models.currencies.html#xrpl.models.currencies.XRP
> @wojake are we good to close this? Yes
+1 I'd want this to exist, I see the value of it considering that the `WalletLocator` field is essentially a reference to a signer. @intelliot 😄 Thoughts?
The `WalletLocator` field will mainly be used by technical users to specify/identify a signer entry. Although there are various benefits to displaying this field, this is a biased request on...
I disagree, the explorer should do what it does best, displaying data in a complete and clean format. A small notice is enough if an account is flagged by the...