Ed Hennis

Here's the thing: If I intentionally subscribe to a UNL that only has one validator on it (not a good idea, but don't judge, maybe it's for testing), that should...

> Not quite, im pointing out say each list had 30+ nodes on it but only 1 was common. The case this becomes more of an issue is as more...

@thejohnfreeman Could you provide a commit message for when this is squashed and merged?

> No, since we introduced a pseudo-account for the LoanBroker, the deposit will go there Right, I wasn't thinking about that, *but* if there is a loan default, and funds...

> > > No, since we introduced a pseudo-account for the LoanBroker, the deposit will go there > > > > > > Right, I wasn't thinking about that, _but_...

> Yeah, I think the potential for confusion is a very good argument, that I couldn't agree more with. Let's add LoanSequence to LoanBroker. Though, this still might have the...

That amount (`1e-34`) is a valid amount on ledger, so it's not "out of range". When I looked a few minutes ago the recipient had a balance around `1e9`. The...

So the idea is you're just commenting out the `#include` to test levelization, but not necessarily removing it permanently? Because if you're removing it, you should just delete it. It'll...

@vlntb Is this ready to merge? If so, please provide a good commit message to use on the merge.

I updated my `validators.txt` to include: ``` [validator_list_sites] # https://vl.ripple.com/ https://vl.xrplf.org/ https://vl.xrplf.org/ [validator_list_keys] # Ripple ED2677ABFFD1B33AC6FBC3062B71F1E8397C1505E1C42C64D11AD1B28FF73F4734 # XRPLF ED45D1840EE724BE327ABE9146503D5848EFD5F38B6D5FEDE71E80ACCE5E6E738B ``` Notice that it includes the keys for both Ripple and...