Topic: After testing Ripple... (Read 8658 times)

Bump!

@ JoelKatz

As far as I know Bitstamp is not yet FinCen compliant.
How does this effect your business with them?

A clear warning in the user interface would also help. More explanation and warning in the online documentation and marketing materials would also be good.

As a result of extensive discussions with users, we're going to make it so that pathways, by default, cannot be "rippled through" unless the previous link in the payment path was a redemption. I don't think that will do much to avoid this "exploit" -- you can probably just convince people to change the default. But it will allow people to hold balances from more than one gateway in the same currency without having as much exposure to a single unstable gateway.

On the bright side, the reduction in free liquidity will mean more opportunity to provide liquidity at a profit.

I think the bitcoin newbie forum is the last place in the world where people actually would understand what trust means. The unique combination of greed and lack of knowledge is unprecedented.
TF knew this, that's why he started the scheme there. Most of the people involved didn't even know ripple.

You can say greed is an exploit for trust, in which case TF exploited human nature not ripple.


Edison electrocuted an elephant to show the dangers of AC power, and while he was correct it would kill the elephant we use AC over DC power all over the world now.

Several hundred people on this forum trusted tradefortress for 100btc - the very fact that they are on this forum suggests that they at least understand enough to know that they shouldn't have - imagine that spreading out across the world to people who don't understand anything.
'hey man trust me for $100 and i'll give you a discount' - people will just do it - there's a $ sign in their account - why would they not believe the money is real?

He proved that it's possible to do useless and bad things with Ripple. The same is true of a hammer.

How about no? How about I only trust people in ripple I do actually trust?

Yeah ripple IOUs don't work - if you are purposefully missing the point.

He has bitcoins - that's his stake.
but it's clear that Ripple IOUs don't work - the experiment proves it.
People will just end up with a load of junk in their Ripple account.
'trust me for $1000 and I'll send you $100 - here's my ripple address just give me yours' in a million email accounts every day.

The pathfinder *should* always prefer to return a person's own balances to them. It is a system invariant that one must always accept one's own balances at face value. However, it may not be all that well tested. Being able to see the transaction paths prior to sending would be a really nice feature to have and a manual feature to directly adjust the balance of a pathway is planned.

If I take a $100 bill, declare it as worthless and give it away is it really such? If ripple is successful TF will just have a bunch of debt. He then can claim it's worthless all he wants, people won't care.
He made a gamble that ripple will fail, which would be ok if he had some stakes to win.

If I send the bitcoins back to tradefortress how do I know he is not going to receive my bitstamp bitcoin IOUs? I only want to return the worthless tradefortress bitcoin IOUs.

Not sure about using RMS as a beacon of freedom. Its a type of freedom but the license he advocates is more restrictive than the license Bitcoin uses.

see: http://stackoverflow.com/a/11752204/405763

RMS is about a certain type of freedom, its all about the end user. This is not bad but it IS restrictive to developers. The MIT license is more flexible and free, but someone could make changes and distribute a closed source version of a MIT program and that's ok. That is truer freedom. RMS advocates GPL that restricts what developers can do with the code (no closed source changes can be distributed without access to source code)

I think MIT is more free because it can be used in more situations than GPL can. Remember RMS is very much against a license being 'too free' that would possibly harm the end user.

Ok this rant is over, I was trying to get the point across that uses RMS as a beacon of freedom is wrong, because his freedom is loaded with his opinions.

Also see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

You might agree with GPL and RMS, however one thing you cannot deny is that it is slightly more restrictive than the MIT license. So RMS is not for 100% freedoms, only 99% freedoms. He wants certain restrictions on stuff and this is ok, what I don't like is how he is always going on about free software as if he is the beacon of freedom. When there are more free softwares out there.

ok I guess, you are right they call it open source then. (although open payment network can mean lots of things)

For the rest of the debate:
I suggest you watch this interview with RMS: http://youtu.be/uFMMXRoSxnA

He clearly states that free software is about the ability to control the software, not about re-distribution.
The GPL for instance restricts re-distribution under other licences and using the program in proprietary products, while the MIT Licence does not restrict the use in proprietary products and the public domain licence poses no restrictions. It is entirely possible for a free (or if you like to call it open source) software to be prohibited in re-distribution.
But we don't even know under which conditions the ripple daemon can be distributed do we?

@ElectricMucus


By the way, you talk bullshit and your signature is complete bullshit.
So fitting.

Again, [citation needed]. There is nowhere said that you can freely distribute all the code (daemon too, not just client).
So you cannot and you have no freedoms RMS talks about.


Oh yes they do:


(Yeah, like that GitHub repo is the WHOLE source)



Lies, lies lies, lies. Goddamn lies everywhere.

It's free software imo, under the definition RMS uses.
It does give users freedom by distributing the software by source code. That you have to adhere to certain conditions to become a user doesn't change that. You can check the software for malicious features and modify it to your liking. It may not be a copyleft licence, but that's an independent issue. Redistribution and access to the source code are different things. Just that the GPL happens to be a free software copyleft licence doesn't mean that every free software has to be copyleft.

So RMS would say, it's free software, don't use the term open source.
Please show me what lies you mean, I can't see them. Do they even say it is to be open source?

Still not Open Source.
So ripple is STILL a scam, because they are STILL lying on their wiki & frontpage !
They could stop it any time by removing the lies. But they don't ? Why ? Because that is what scammers do.


Actually, yeah. He would say that it is not GPL and therefore does not protect user's freedom.

It's not like there is a binary version of it either. If you get access to the software you get the source, if you don't you don't.

You know what Richard Stallman would say?

Where is the license information ? This is still NOT open source.

If they give you the source, it does not mean it is open. It does not mean you can share it, modify it, redistribute it.

They can sue you if you use their code against their guidelines / share it with somebody.