Topic: "Ashish Goel...who is developing his own peer-to-peer currency" - page 2. (Read 7520 times)
Commodity currencies without guarantors have arisen often historically. That's what bitcoin is: a commodity, but one that is almost weightless.
so ripple model is like google page rank for currency?
Silverpike: The idea of a credit network is not that everyone trusts everyone -- it is that you can choose who to trust. If you want to buy something from a stranger, you have to find a chain of trust : If A trusts B and B trusts C, then C can buy something from A; C pays B in C's currency, and B pays A in B's currency; the trust values go down since some of the trust got used up.
The credit network model is not perfect either. One problem is what someone alluded to on this thread: it is not immediately clear how many C Dollars are worth a B Dollar.
The credit network model is not perfect either. One problem is what someone alluded to on this thread: it is not immediately clear how many C Dollars are worth a B Dollar.
Healthy competition between different currencies will show which currency is accepted by most of the people. The better currency survives, as long as there is free competition possible.
What you are saying is indeed correct, jhansen. People are demonstrating their confidence in bitcoin by buying it with US Dollars. And that's great for the currency.
What is missing is the reverse: there is nobody who is guaranteeing that a bitcoin will return US Dollars; a bitcoin is holding its value by mutual agreement and convention. This is weaker than the US Dollar which holds its value because it is guaranteed by a powerful sovereign country.
I could be wrong of course. One could argue that the fact that the US is a country is also a matter of "mutual agreement and convention". Time will tell. Personally, I am more fascinated by the credit network/ripple model, and one of the perks of being a Professor is being able to work on what fascinates you.
What is missing is the reverse: there is nobody who is guaranteeing that a bitcoin will return US Dollars; a bitcoin is holding its value by mutual agreement and convention. This is weaker than the US Dollar which holds its value because it is guaranteed by a powerful sovereign country.
I could be wrong of course. One could argue that the fact that the US is a country is also a matter of "mutual agreement and convention". Time will tell. Personally, I am more fascinated by the credit network/ripple model, and one of the perks of being a Professor is being able to work on what fascinates you.
Hello Ashish, I'm glad you responded here. Many users here tend to be very rabid Bitcoin supporters, so having thick skin is probably a wise idea. 
Your model seems to be based on a "trust-anyone" view, which in a P2P context is very dangerous. P2P systems are highly vulnerable to node isolation and manipulation of nodes by blockade, so the trusting of peers creates a vulnerability. I didn't read your publications, but maybe you have a solution for this problem (I'd like to see how). Bittorrent programs get around this problem by using central authorities. However, for finance, the use of a central authority is risky in the sense of preserving the sovereignty of wealth of individuals.
Bitcoin represents the cleanest and most innovative solution to these problems I have yet seen.
Am the "Ashish Goel" in question. Not sure whether anyone is still reading this thread, but here goes some stuff.
d) I understand this is a bitcoin forum, so this will be an unpopular view. But I believe that a currency can only work if there is someone backing it. In a true P2P currency, trust must be vested in peers. Bitcoin relies completely on convention, which risks going the same way as the "tulip trade".
The "magic" of Bitcoin is that trust is not needed between peers. In fact the people exchanging coins don't have to know anything about each other whatsoever, only that the other party is represented by a unique address to/from which they can send coins. This in my mind is the brilliance of Bitcoin. The usage of math guarantees this transaction, so in some sense the "trust" present in Bitcoin is trust in mathematical ideas and algorithms themselves. It is the closest implementation of a trust-free economy I can think of.d) I understand this is a bitcoin forum, so this will be an unpopular view. But I believe that a currency can only work if there is someone backing it. In a true P2P currency, trust must be vested in peers. Bitcoin relies completely on convention, which risks going the same way as the "tulip trade".
Your model seems to be based on a "trust-anyone" view, which in a P2P context is very dangerous. P2P systems are highly vulnerable to node isolation and manipulation of nodes by blockade, so the trusting of peers creates a vulnerability. I didn't read your publications, but maybe you have a solution for this problem (I'd like to see how). Bittorrent programs get around this problem by using central authorities. However, for finance, the use of a central authority is risky in the sense of preserving the sovereignty of wealth of individuals.
Bitcoin represents the cleanest and most innovative solution to these problems I have yet seen.
I'll have to check out hte ripple model however I disagree or don't understand when you say no one is backing bitcoins.
Everytime someone buys a bitcoin with dollars, they are backing bitcoin. Collectivly bitcoin users have purchased them with money from other people who invested money in hardware to find the bitcoins.
Everyone is invested along the way. Am I wrong or misunderstanding?
Everytime someone buys a bitcoin with dollars, they are backing bitcoin. Collectivly bitcoin users have purchased them with money from other people who invested money in hardware to find the bitcoins.
Everyone is invested along the way. Am I wrong or misunderstanding?
Am the "Ashish Goel" in question. Not sure whether anyone is still reading this thread, but here goes some stuff.
a) I did read everything about bitcoin on its web page
b) Yes, the ripple model is the one I am more excited about. I am not the one who came up with the model (references are in http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0515) -- I am just developing theory for it with some students and trying to understand applications. So have no vested interest in pushing one model over the other. Also, not saying that ripple will work as a company, just that it is a more interesting currency.
c) There is no need to point guns at anyone in the credit network model (our name for the ripple currency) -- the point of the model is that everyone accepts whatever currency they want, from whatever user, for whatever amount they like.
d) I understand this is a bitcoin forum, so this will be an unpopular view. But I believe that a currency can only work if there is someone backing it. In a true P2P currency, trust must be vested in peers. Bitcoin relies completely on convention, which risks going the same way as the "tulip trade".
e) Lots of nice beautiful stuff about bitcoin. Big fan of the beautiful crytographic ideas. Only disagreeing with the part about it not being clear who is being trusted.
f) Any questions about the math in the paper or comments on the credit network model or ideas regarding the open problems? Shoot me an email at ashishg AT stanford DOT edu. Or just leave a comment here and I will monitor it.
a) I did read everything about bitcoin on its web page
b) Yes, the ripple model is the one I am more excited about. I am not the one who came up with the model (references are in http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0515) -- I am just developing theory for it with some students and trying to understand applications. So have no vested interest in pushing one model over the other. Also, not saying that ripple will work as a company, just that it is a more interesting currency.
c) There is no need to point guns at anyone in the credit network model (our name for the ripple currency) -- the point of the model is that everyone accepts whatever currency they want, from whatever user, for whatever amount they like.
d) I understand this is a bitcoin forum, so this will be an unpopular view. But I believe that a currency can only work if there is someone backing it. In a true P2P currency, trust must be vested in peers. Bitcoin relies completely on convention, which risks going the same way as the "tulip trade".
e) Lots of nice beautiful stuff about bitcoin. Big fan of the beautiful crytographic ideas. Only disagreeing with the part about it not being clear who is being trusted.
f) Any questions about the math in the paper or comments on the credit network model or ideas regarding the open problems? Shoot me an email at ashishg AT stanford DOT edu. Or just leave a comment here and I will monitor it.
So what he's saying is that individuals should point their guns at people and force them to use his currency?
...those who see the powerful driving influence of the early adopters - and understand that without their 'advantage' [i.e., their foresight, effort and risk] Bitcoin could never have succeeded.
I think that's one reason Bitcoin is taking off so fast, while Ripple still hasn't gained traction. Even though Ripple is a very interesting idea in its own right, the incentives for adoption aren't nearly as strong.
ripple... yes.
here's a truth to ponder: everyone who hears about Bitcoin - and to some degree understands it - may be divided into two categories.
...those who see the powerful driving influence of the early adopters - and understand that without their 'advantage' [i.e., their foresight, effort and risk] Bitcoin could never have succeeded.
...and those who think that the destruction of the wealth of the early adopters (by whatever scheme, however cleverly veiled) will somehow make more people want to participate. (because, of course, nobody will ever come along and take theirs away < /snark >)
personally, i understand, and even marginally approve of socialism applied in some areas of human endeavor: public roads, for example (marvelous creations, which are somehow always ignored by those who claim their riches are solely the result of their own, individual effort). or health care ( individual and collective longevity having considerable impact on the accumulation of wealth - both individually and collectively).
but not in the creation of wealth. and spare me:
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." ~OW
in any case, it is clear where mr. goel fits into that dichotomy.
of course, we should also keep in mind that the world is divided into two other categories: people who divide the world into two categories, and those who do not. * sigh * this thinking stuff is hard...
here's a truth to ponder: everyone who hears about Bitcoin - and to some degree understands it - may be divided into two categories.
...those who see the powerful driving influence of the early adopters - and understand that without their 'advantage' [i.e., their foresight, effort and risk] Bitcoin could never have succeeded.
...and those who think that the destruction of the wealth of the early adopters (by whatever scheme, however cleverly veiled) will somehow make more people want to participate. (because, of course, nobody will ever come along and take theirs away < /snark >)
personally, i understand, and even marginally approve of socialism applied in some areas of human endeavor: public roads, for example (marvelous creations, which are somehow always ignored by those who claim their riches are solely the result of their own, individual effort). or health care ( individual and collective longevity having considerable impact on the accumulation of wealth - both individually and collectively).
but not in the creation of wealth. and spare me:
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." ~OW
in any case, it is clear where mr. goel fits into that dichotomy.
of course, we should also keep in mind that the world is divided into two other categories: people who divide the world into two categories, and those who do not. * sigh * this thinking stuff is hard...
Sounds a bit like Ripple, actually.
From today's Financial Times article, which itself is quoting New Scientist:
What Bitcoin lacks is “a clear attribution of a guarantor for every unit of currency”, says Ashish Goel of Stanford University, who is developing his own peer-to-peer currency model. “In centralised currencies such as the US dollar, guarantors are governments. For P2P currencies, it should be individuals.”
Did a very quick google search and couldn't find any more information, but according to his Stanford University page he also serves on the technical advisory board for Twitter. Could be interesting!
What Bitcoin lacks is “a clear attribution of a guarantor for every unit of currency”, says Ashish Goel of Stanford University, who is developing his own peer-to-peer currency model. “In centralised currencies such as the US dollar, guarantors are governments. For P2P currencies, it should be individuals.”
Did a very quick google search and couldn't find any more information, but according to his Stanford University page he also serves on the technical advisory board for Twitter. Could be interesting!
That doesn't really sound much like a 'currency'. If each unit has a different guarantor of variable quality then each unit would have to be valued differently.
My reply to the article:
Quote
What Stanford University lacks is people who do their research on Bitcoin.
For your consideration, here's the original whitepaper: http://www.scribd....it-Coin-Whitepaper
Also, the debunking of popular myths: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths
Bitcoin will most certainly be able to compete with incompetent sovereign monetary policies and bungled central bank control. I'd recommend getting familiar with the system, your next employer may appreciate that skillset on your resume.
For your consideration, here's the original whitepaper: http://www.scribd....it-Coin-Whitepaper
Also, the debunking of popular myths: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths
Bitcoin will most certainly be able to compete with incompetent sovereign monetary policies and bungled central bank control. I'd recommend getting familiar with the system, your next employer may appreciate that skillset on your resume.
Quote from: airdata
The families who first realized they could hold peoples money and then loan it out to other people at interest are at this point worth upwards of hundreds of trillions of dollars.
[citation needed]
Because as we all know, the US dollar is safe & sound since it's backed by the good faith of myself and the rest of the american people.
Alot of people have been waking up to the fact that central banking is and has always been a scam. The families who first realized they could hold peoples money and then loan it out to other people at interest are at this point worth upwards of hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The US dollar has lost some 95% of it's value since it's inception. And this only continues to drop with questionable economic practices like quantatative easing and mass amounts of fraud.
Alot of people have been waking up to the fact that central banking is and has always been a scam. The families who first realized they could hold peoples money and then loan it out to other people at interest are at this point worth upwards of hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The US dollar has lost some 95% of it's value since it's inception. And this only continues to drop with questionable economic practices like quantatative easing and mass amounts of fraud.
Developing one's own p2p currency must be the most profitable business this decade.
I guess since the US government's "guaranty" of all its worthless paper is based on threatening and bullying third parties when it comes time to pay, he thinks it's a good idea to expand this model to individuals as well.
From today's Financial Times article, which itself is quoting New Scientist:
What Bitcoin lacks is “a clear attribution of a guarantor for every unit of currency”, says Ashish Goel of Stanford University, who is developing his own peer-to-peer currency model. “In centralised currencies such as the US dollar, guarantors are governments. For P2P currencies, it should be individuals.”
Did a very quick google search and couldn't find any more information, but according to his Stanford University page he also serves on the technical advisory board for Twitter. Could be interesting!
What Bitcoin lacks is “a clear attribution of a guarantor for every unit of currency”, says Ashish Goel of Stanford University, who is developing his own peer-to-peer currency model. “In centralised currencies such as the US dollar, guarantors are governments. For P2P currencies, it should be individuals.”
Did a very quick google search and couldn't find any more information, but according to his Stanford University page he also serves on the technical advisory board for Twitter. Could be interesting!
Jump to: