Topic: Bitcoin-like implementation of Ripple (Read 13349 times)

Ripple transactions are (or will be) expensive too because all nodes in the network have to proccess them, they're still in-chain transactions (just another chain without proof of work).
Will Ripple scale to 1M tx/s ? I highly doubt it.
This thread was proposing to have multiple assets and transitive (ripple-like) transactions on Bitcoin's chain (or an altcoin), but that doesn't help with scalability, just adds a lot of new interesting use cases.
That's why integrating with something off-chain like Ryan's 2PC was critical and that's why we have "private chains" in Freimarkets to account for off-chain assets.
OT is more interesting than Ripple for scalability because its transactions are off-chain but its main limitation is the lack of transitive transactions between different OT servers.
I think that's a huge deal. Freimarkets has contracts (with scripts) and could be extended further but OT will never have ripple-like transitive transactions between different servers.

I think of Bitcoin as ultimate digital settlement, like gold over IP.

Bitcoin transactions are however rather expensive (including block reward) and slow to be final.

For higher abstractions or fast micropayments OT and Ripple seem better suited, but proof are outstanding. I actually prefer OT over Ripple for its capture of contracts and focus on auditability of the server actions.

As said there's no technical reason impeding Bitcoin from having those multi-currency and transitive transactions features.
Providing more privacy than Ripple, since Bitcoin uses unspent transactions and Ripple uses everlasting accounts (you cannot destroy them right now).

I think you're right that proof of work remains the choice for ultimate settlement but Ripple also has limits to sclability and we ultimately need off-chain transactions in one way or another. Whether those off-chain transactions will happen on Freimarkets-like private chains or in Open Transactions centralized but trust-less servers we don't know yet.
I think that the ability to atomically trade in-chain and off-chain assets is critical, but I could be wrong.

These advantages are specific to Ripple labs (previously opencoin) implementation concept, but I think he's asking more generally.
It doesn't have a block chain but it has a ledger chain, not that different really.
The transactions aren't instant, but their confirmation takes seconds instead of blocks.
The lack of proof of work as an advantage is arguable. Bitcoin is 100% trust-less because of that and Ripple has some trust involved in the construction of the UNL. We don't even know for sure if this will work when the network is p2p instead of under Ripple lab's control. Now that it is free software, people can create their own networks to experiment on forks, sibil attacks and other security aspects of this new proof of consensus.
We will see, but I'm glad they're experimenting with new global consensus mechanisms different from proof of work.


In general, Ripple-like systems like freimarkets allow the trade and transfer of more things than just a currency. Typically the balances represent IOUs, but they can represent many other things like shares, bonds...
The balances can be denominated in any currency.
The more interesting thing of the Ripple concept is the ability to perform transitive atomic transactions. That is, you can exchange the IOUs transitively and pay the recipient in a different currency from the one you spent.
An example:

Merchant D only accept localD_USD (a local currency in his community) as payment. Customer A holds BTC and wants to pay to merchant D.
In a single transaction, he sells his BTC for issuerB_EUR, which then sells for issuerC_USD and then for localD_USD and then sends them to merchant D.

Maybe you don't want to pay anyone and just want to buy localD_USD for BTC at the lowest price you can find and this path results to be the cheapest.
You could make another example where the payer pays USD and the merchant receives BTC, of course.

This feature is ideal for a p2p exchange.
And Bitcoin could have p2p exchange and transitive transactions too (among many other things) if we modify the protocol as proposed in Freimarkets.

Bitcoin makes no compromises enabling trustless trade in a fungible unit of account.

Ripple lets you use any units but does not protect you of colluding servers.

Ripple might work just as secure as an SPV node of Bitcoin and it is likely more user friendly.

I guess Bitcoin remains the choice for ultimate settlement, while Ripple adds features we also need.

Ripple advantages:
 * Instant Transactions
 * No hashing / mining
 * No block chain
 * Ability to have balances in multiple currencies

Can someone explain in laymen why I would need a ripple if I already have a Bitcoin?

thnx

Oopps, I missed some action in this thread.

@blablahblah

LETS and other local currency systems work perfectly well, there's more than 4000 local currencies in operation. It's interesting to note that many complementary currencies advocates often say exactly the same you said about LETS, but about Bitcoin: "Bitcoin deflects attention away from social currencies and other real alternatives."
Goldbugs, greenbackers, "local currency hippies", gesellians, bitcoiners, trade clubs, etc are all on the same boat, we're all monetary reformists that recognize that that out monetary system is the root of most evils. Even if we have different opinions on what's exactly is wrong with the current system.
We should try to understand each other better and fight together against the banking cartel, usd, eur, etc instead of fighting each other.
We bitcoiners are just the last faction of a much bigger movement.
All local currencies, time banks and "barter" clubs combined have far more users than Bitcoin.
It would be huge for Bitcoin to integrate with those trade networks.

@CIYAM Open
OT is useless for many use cases because you can't even trade two assets in two different servers atomically.
Ripple.com has a lot to do with this proposal, replacing proof of work with their new consensus mechanism. I don't know if that will work, but it's worth trying.
It is currently free software although the network is not p2p yet.
I think it has several design flaws though, and it doesn't look like their developers want to fix them.

@Everyone interested
For me Freimarkets is the continuation of this proposal.
I also wanted to integrate this proposal with Ryan's Two phase commit ripple distributed protocol and "private chains" are the way we decided to do that.
Well, not exactly with Ryan's design, but we also use the two phase commit and support more scalable and private off-chain transactions.

Some advantages over Ripple(tm):

- Support for off-chain assets/transactions.
- Support for interest bearing assets.
- Open orders (and trust lines, which in this case are emulated using regular orders) are off-chain.
- More scalable KYC support (and more flexible for some local currencies related special needs).
- Compatible with Bitcoin's design, code and scripting language (it's just an extension).
- Unspent outputs instead of accounts (no sequencing, better privacy).
- Although miners are likely to prefer the hostcoin, fees can be paid in any asset type.
- Support for unique non-fungible assets (better for some smart property use cases).
- Auctions, options...

Currently I'm busy finishing Freicoin Foundation's website, maaku is busy with the "ultimate UTXO compression" implementation and we're both busy building a crypto-currency business together.
In addition we haven't received much funding for this yet and we would also appreciate more feedback from core bitcoin developers that have also thought about smart property and off-chain transactions.

Anyone interested in seeing this happen please review the design and/or fund the development.
We cannot promise you to get rich like mastercoin or bitshares, or any return in your donation at all, but we think this would open the door to many entrepreneurship opportunities.

To quote from the github project:


https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions

What is Open Transactions, sorry?

I would suggest looking into what is going on with Open Transactions and its recent integration testing with BitMessage.

If this is packaged well then I think it could well be the "next big thing" (and it doesn't require XRP).

Has this gotten anywhere? I just found it now and thought that there truly is a need for an open-source, decentralised implementation of the Ripple protocol.

The Bitcoin economy has always had a major problem with trust.
The fact transactions aren't reversible, the heavy inclination for anonymity in the community, and the track record of scams, make lending a very risky activity.
In turn, this makes it difficult for businesses to raise funds, which prevents the growth of the economy.

A system like Ripple could be of great help to facilitate lending.
The chain of trust acts like a path to recall the funds, making the transactions somehow reversible.
Anonymity is preserved in a way that reminds of TOR. Each intermediate knows who is his immediate debtor and creditor, but doesn't know who are the end points, or if the immediate creditor or debtor are endpoints themselves or just forwarding the debt along.
Scams are not practical because defaulting on one's debt is going to wrong a close acquaintance and no one else.

Beside, there is another major quality of a system like Ripple: debt can be distributed. Instead of owing a huge amount to a single creditor, one can instead contract tens of small debts for the same amount on tens of paths that involve tens of direct friends. This reduces greatly the risk borne by each creditor, and gives flexibility to arrange for selective default in case of difficulty (family or closet friends will likely be more flexible and understanding). Debt can be distributed even further. You may accept to lend a large amount to a friend, and distribute the debt on 5 more friends.
That can even be combined with a system of interests that would be proportional to the number of levels involved. If you have many friends, and you borrow a small amount to all of them, you will get away with very low or no interets. If you borrow to friends of your friends, you will have to pay interests to your friend's friend as well etc. The huge advantage is that, while the interest rate grows linearly with the distance, the sum that can be raised grows exponentially.

It has Vitalik.
There has been a lot of discussion and work.
I am currently awaiting a few comments from Jorge Timon who is an authority on Ripple & Bitcoin.
Will post after they come about.

As of now, there are 4+ ways to integrate Bitcoin and Ripple.

Has the Ripple project advanced at all this past year? It seems like such a good idea in theory, it's a shame to see it getting neglected so much.

http://bensonsamuel.com/bitcoin-3/a-decentralized-monetary-system-for-a-decentralized-currency/

Thanks for the reply.  It's a good point.  Being a bank and issuing your own debt-backed currency -- which is essentially what Ripple enables -- can be tricky.  The hope is that participants learn to handle defaults in the same way as banks:  They accept the loss in the context of overall assets and liabilities, rather than isolating particular liabilities they allowed to be incurred by granting the credit.  It really isn't your fault that Fred decided to trust Sue, and *you* have to trust Fred to be mature enough to acknowledge that.  If you don't think he is, then you shouldn't offer *him* credit. 

We will need to design the software to guide users' through these processes, as well as giving them advice and tools to make them continually aware of their own exposure to debt and prepare them for inevitable defaults, such as highlighting inactivity on risky accounts near their credit limit, and a way to to set aside a reserve fund, possibly from transaction fees or interest charged on loans.

It's definitely not a trivial problem, but I envision solutions evolving as more and more value is transacted in Ripple and it becomes more important.

Ryan

So what? You mean to imply a metaphor between money and water when the comparison is specious. If you have a mostly immobile  sand dune and every so often a grain is picked up by wind and moves to a nearby dune that is a more appropriate metaphor for money.

Another metaphor is is two roads. The high road moves very fast, with a small number of cars, and many collisions. This is the hot money flow.

The low road moves very slowly, and is always gridlocked. This is the saving of ordinary people.

There is an on-ramp and off ramp to the high road. This is an appropriate model. And yields a totally different way of thinking, and highlights totally different problems and solutions, than the image of water moving in pipes.


A high (or low) 'velocity' is neither here nor there. A single coin with ultra high velocity is as good, you say, as many coins with low velocity. In fact they are equivalent according to the MV=PQ.

The force you term Velocity arises from the technology associated with money, cultural norms, and imbalances like interest rate differentials. It is therefore not something that can be forced, but an emergent property of all these things.

Fees don't destroy money, they transfer it. When a transaction fee is incurred, the generator of the block receives that money. When demurrage occurs, the money disappears forever.

If the average dollar moves every 8 months, in 12 months the avarage velocity of the dollar is 1.5
With demurrage, that number would be considerably greater. Anyway, even if you don't believe in the effects of velocity and you think it all depends on the supply, demurrage can destroy money like your fee does.
The main pro is that it encourages transactions instead of punish them. The removal of the interest is a pro for me too.
The main contra is that the currency loses partially the function of storage of wealth.


I said per year for simplification. It would be per block in the block chain when you spend the money since you received it.
Is imposed artificially but the users should accept that rule. The creation and the spending fee are artificial too.

You're probably right about the sense it can make to everyday people.


I'm not saying that I would remove the ability to charge interest in Ripple, but I believe it would be zero in most cases. The scarcity of money is the source of interest, I think. And Ripple doesn't have that scarcity.


Most people won't never get the Ripplecoins. They will be just trading with IOUs. All they need to know is that (in exchange of their services) the Nodes are creating money that they will have to accept for settling debts. Since they won't usually produce that money, they won't have a problem if that money expires gradually.
The problem is with miners. They will prefer the usage fee.