Topic: "Ashish Goel...who is developing his own peer-to-peer currency" (Read 7520 times)

i disagree. but apparently you think gold and silver backed currency is not the best. inflated ego much or just elitist?

From what I've gathered on the form the originators of Bitcoin likely hold a trove of BTC which are current market value would be just shy of a half billion USD, nothing to sneeze at, of course if they tried to realize that profit right now BTC would become worthless ;-)

With Ripple, you only give and accept IOUs to and from trusted associates. Furthermore, you give your trusted associates credit limits and they do the same to you. If you want to do business with a stranger using Ripple, you do not give him one of your IOUs. You are a stranger to him as well and he will not accept it. Rather, the Ripple network maps out a path of trusting associates between you and the stranger through which you give an IOU, equal to the value of the product, to one (or more) of your trusted associates, who gives one to his, and his, and so forth until the stranger gets an IOU from someone he already trusts. You and your trusted associates--and theirs, and theirs, and so on--will settle these IOUs on agreed upon terms, perhaps with USD, bitcoins, barter, and perhaps only on a weekly or fortnightly basis. It may turn out that over the course of that period, you will receive enough IOUs from your trusted associates to cancel the IOUs they accepted from you.

I hope you don't think that if one does the other can't. I see the two as complementary.

I think the trick is not to accept more IOUs from your friends than you trust them to pay back. In deciding on a credit limit, you have to consider how much they could default on before it really harmed your relationship and how flexible you are in accepting reimbursement.

In a way, anyone that participates in Bitcoin is a guarantor, voluntarily.

Isn't that clear enough?

bitcoin is Gold 2.0: Limited amount, but anonymous and uncontrollable.

bitcoin is Fiat currency like the USD. USD is not backed by Gold. It is backed by nothing.

Its hard to prove that bitcoins won't work or that credit networks will. I guess it will be fascinating to observe how this all shakes out in a decade or two.

It is indeed true in credit networks (as has been pointed out) that if your friend gives you an IOU and then runs away, you are left holding the bag with no recourse. So the whole system depends on choosing your friends wisely. Don't mean to oversell that model. Perhaps we/someone will figure out improvements.

It is also true as has been pointed out that bitcoin's value is supported by supply and demand. The demand is not for something tangible though -- I have a "demand" for bitcoin only if a lot of other people do as well -- hence the analogy to the tulip trade.

Am signing off this panel for now, but am always available over email (ashishg AT stanford DOT edu) and feel free to drop by our seminars: http://rain.stanford.edu and continue the conversation in person.

Just read the Ripple faq...

I do agree that it is an efficient model. 

The mere possibility that some one who you transacted with would not pay you back makes the system unusable from a business stand point imo.   I need to know and depend on the absolute fact that this money I have now will be honored and valid.   If I'm reading this right, this model depends on you not wanting to make people feel bad and lose trust in you when you fuck them over.   I mean, I do business with strangers that I do not or would not want to know personally.  Ripple seems to preclude this type of a transaction being possible.
 

The only guarantor bitcoin needs is a market for insurance against theft by hax.

You might find some appropriate answers here: http://ripple-project.org/Main/FAQ

That's a feature, not a bug.  It ensures that there is no government force artificially subsidizing wealth redistribution, collectivization, unprofitable trade, and overpopulation.  This helps to ensure an ample supply of material resources and a high standard of living.


There's no mutual agreement.  A Bitcoin is not a contract or a "note".  Its value is determined by supply and demand.


The US has no sovereign.  Federal Reserve Notes are not guaranteed by the US government.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you expect an individual to "guarantee" his currency?  Suppose you print up an Ashish-note, and I trade you a watermelon for it.  Do I just get to demand something back from you in return?  What if I decide that your Ashish-note has risen in value, and now I'd like to have your house?  Would you guarantee Ashish-notes with your house?  Or does this scheme require infinite, never-ending human labor?  For that matter, why would you even want your Ashish-notes back?  Can't you just keep printing them forever, and aways find new suckers who will accept them?  I suppose you can't do that if you have to "guarantee" them?  Someone can go to court and force you to take them back?  So, then, don't ever print any Ashish-notes if you want to keep your house I guess?

I happen to be a big fan of Ripple. However, a user on one Ripple server cannot send or receive an IOU to or from a user on another server. Therefore, as it stands, users have to depend on a single, central, vulnerable provider. Hopefully that will change soon.

Anyway, Ripple is an awesome project and I hope you will contribute back to it, that you will open source your work.

Not to keep this off topic, but for anyone skeptical of this claim, I highly recommend watching the video The Creature From Jekyll Island.

this is where you're wrong.  the network does not rely on trust at all.  if 2 ppl or a merchant and customer waits for the block to clear, the transaction is good.  the whole public record is available to all to verify.  this is Satoshi's brilliance.

+1

Trust of your peers?

Oh, right, that one guy with the glasses. I trust him.

at the least that USD will be used to pay taxes? This alone seems to guarantee that demand for dollars will not entirely disappear.

hrm sounds interesting, I'm going to make a point to read about it tomorrow.   The key ideas of course for bitcoin which I was so blown away from are the cryptographic "proof of work" idea which first attracted me to bitcoin.  I can with absolute certainty trust that you cant lie cheat or steal from me because there is too much work involved to make it practical.   Key is absolute certainty.  If an attack on bitcoin network was ever discovered, that trust would be greatly diminished.  If people ever actually lost large amounts of money due to an attack, that would be the death of bit coin. 

For any crypto currency to work, I would have to get that warm fuzzy instantaneous gratification that I got with bitcoin of trusting the proof of work that was done to ensure this currency is legit.  It doesn't have to be a cryptographic method, but that sure is a good one.

   

What do you mean by "guaranteed". What exactly is the US government guaranteeing?

Jaime, public roads aren't so great when you see them as subsidizing certain industries at the expense of urban sprawl, traffic, pollution, lack of mass transit, etc.


Again, I don't see how government can improve health care. They are the reason we have medical licensing laws (artificially limits supply of doctors), health insurance laws (state mandatory policies, unable to buy across state lines), employer subsidized health care (relic of WWII wage caps, ties employees to employer's health care), Medicaid's under payment for services (subsidized by those privately insured), etc. How can additional government oversight fix the problems government causes?

jhansen: No. PageRank can get amplified by spammers/bad actors. If you get fooled into making a link to a spammer X, and then X links to Y and Y links to X, then the PageRank of both X and Y for you will go up dramatically because of this loop. This is one major cause of spam results in search engines.

Credit Networks are designed to be robust to this. If you mistakenly trust a bad node X for one unit, and X and Y trust each other for 10000 units, they can together only do you one unit of damage. After either X or Y buy something from you and pay you one Dollar in X's currency, you don't trust X anymore and are insulated from additional collusive fraud by X and Y.