Topic: http://ripplescam.org/ - page 6. (Read 6492 times)

I was thinking just of the use of Coin-burning as a tool for transition between cryptocurrencies, not necessarily to using proof of burn in that new currency after the transition. The existing Bitcoin blockchain can be used as algorithmic proof that someone gave up their BTC, and the new blockchain can then credit the same amount to the corresponding new address. In that way the value of the old BTC wouldn't drop as it is replaced by the new BTC.

I don't really get proof of burn because that link is hard to read.  Fine, the formula simulates a mining rig, but what about the proof of work property that makes it hard for an attacker to replicate the block chain from scratch and double spend?  In other words, what specifically makes it difficult for the attacker to perform an attack?  

Also, the whole expense replication is complex because it uses the value of BTC itself to represent real resources.  This has an unknown affect (to me) on how the valuation of BTC would be affected.  Who determines the value of c?  A central authority?

Anyway haven't thought about it that much but those are the initial impressions.

The specifics are available on the Ripple wiki. If you understand the internal design and mechanics of BitCoin you will see that the design and mechanics of Ripple are superior in every way. It is like BitCoin (the code base) 2.0. It would be trivial to make BitCoin (the coin) better, faster, cheaper by converting the existing BitCoin block chain into a new Ripple (the code base) ledger.

That is the obvious next step for BitCoin once the Ripple code base is released. Most everything important on the BitCoin Hard Fork Wishlist is already done in the Ripple code base. Doing so would have one really interesting side effect.

Ripple (the code base) has zero use for the "mining" part of current BitCoin miner's expensive rigs. It would be trivial to mod the Ripple code base to distribute 25 BTC among those who helped validate transactions in a given 10 minute period. However, the validation chore can be done with the power of a cell phone. (maybe a little exaggeration, but certainly with the old laptop you recently upgraded)

Goodbye, GPU cards, FPGAs, and ASICs. But really... Would that be a bad thing?

Maybe even the people with large stashes of BTC, since its value will drop rapidly as people try to cash out. Innovating on top of Bitcoin could be a way to preserve the value. Even if the core protocol of Bitcoin were to need modifications to allow Ripple-like functionality, it could be done through proof of burn, keeping the exchange rate fixed at 1:1 for a predetermined period.

That is an interesting point.  

In my view if Ripple>BTC, the majority of people that have large stashes of BTC will just exchange their stashes of BTC and buy ripple.  (I don't have large stash but am in this camp.)  There is nothing intrinsic about BTC in and of itself that can or ever will be able to prevent this.  This is one of the reasons why BTC valuations are so volatile.

People who are active in the Bitcoin community, miners, etc. will probably be in the group of people you talk about.

Once the code is open sourced, anyone want to speculate on the alt-ripple networks? Why should we use the infrastructure that opencoin presents instead of some clone?  Maybe the clone will have faster transaction times or something .  Time to go reserve pipple.com and dipple.com?

Agreed. On the flip side, if Ripple ever does look like overtaking Bitcoin, it will give those with large stashes of BTC an incentive to facilitate development of a rival system based purely on Bitcoin. Competition is good, it will drive prices down, drive innovation and keep everyone honest.

Agree.

To add, it's a competitive market and if Ripple turns out to be a better implementation and can gain more user traction, it will replace Bitcoin.  Then people like the Winklevosses will lose some money that they otherwise would have made.  Think about where Apple was a decade ago.

It's hard to judge whether or not ripple is designed with intent to be a Bitcoin killer without looking at the code/protocol specifics.  If I were OpenCoin, I would obviously design it with the potential to kill Bitcoin if possible.  Right now we are just going by the assurances of its employees that it's not or "unlikely" going to replace bitcoin even though there is potential.

I guess some people dislike Ripple because they worry it might rob them of their chance to strike it rich with their cheaply acquired or self-mined BTC. They feel like co-owners of Bitcoin, and they feel they can only be users of Ripple, not co-owners. It's an invalid argument, but I think that's what's behind it. I'm not talking about user "bitchess" here BTW.

I guess the devil is in the details.  Will have to wait until it happens and the specifics of the code/protocol before it can be really judged.  The biggest gorilla in the room is the optics of having a for-profit entity pull it off.  Why else did Satoshi so ingeniously use a pseudonym and execute the deployment like an academic.

We're working on seamless inbound and outbound Bitcoin gateways (so you can just right to a Bitcoin address from the client and send to a Bitcoin address and it will appear in your Ripple wallet). It works just fine right now, you just have to return the IOUs to their issuer and redeem them. Bitstamp has made this totally painless (other than their hot wallet running dry a lot).

Yes. But they'll do less and so they can charge less. No one entity will have the exclusive pathway to the distributed exchange, so competition should not only bring rates down but also keep policies sane. Don't like one gateway's policy? Exchange their IOUs for IOUs at another gateway to redeem.

Maybe, maybe not, but that's the beauty, they don't have to. What the merchant accepts and what you pay them with don't have to be related at all. Ripple is a financial matching engine. So long as you have something liquid and they accept something liquid, a cheap path should be possible.

Well stated.  I get your point.  It's a good strategy since your company gets a couple places for upside while piggybacking off BTC growth.  

My handle is actually supposed to be pronounced like bit-cheese.  Can you dig?

Is this actually true though? Every time I press a ripple guy on this, they end up talking about IOUs. If I actually want to send bitcoins to someone, instead of IOUs for bitcoins, ripple doesn't help me, does it?


I can see a distributed order book happening, but won't there still be a need for mtgoxes of the world to clear the dollar side of the transactions?


Merchants are going to start accepting IOUs for bitcoins instead of real bitcoins?

Nothing would happen if we flipped it off. We'd just be in the minority and ignored. Once you let the cat out of the bag, you can't stuff it back in. It's just like when Satoshi decentralized Bitcoin by making it all public. He couldn't change his mind at that point. If he realized that 21 million was the wrong number of Bitcoins, he was stuck with it.

The whole point of decentralizing something is that no one entity can impose its will on it. When you give up the power to do evil, you give up the power to do good as well.

Why is there so much talk about flipping a switch, if you flip it on and decentralize, what stops you from flipping it off later?  Can you please elaborate?  Thx

This is an incredibly unlikely scenario. It is almost impossible to imagine Ripple's success as being anything but good for Bitcoin.

For the foreseeable future, Bitcoin will be one of the core currencies traded and moved on the Ripple network. Ripple will give Bitcoins faster transactions that don't clutter the blockchain. Ripple will make fiat currencies hard enough that they can be reliably traded for Bitcoins and Ripple will provide a distributed exchange that will make it easier for people to buy and sell Bitcoins. And every merchant that takes Ripple will be one more place you can spend your Bitcoins.

It will be a long time, if ever, before Bitcoin and Ripple compete with each other in any meaningful sense.

In any event, XRP will only compete with Bitcoin as a currency if it is as good as or superior to Bitcoin as a currency. Do you really want to argue that if that happens, nevertheless it's still somehow bad for Ripple to do that?

By the way, is your nickname supposed to be "bitch-ess" or "bit-chess"? It makes a difference.

By intentional design, it is very difficult to change the rules by which transactions are executed. Obviously, you want people to be able to rely on the system behaving the same tomorrow as it has today. As soon as the network is decentralized, any new feature or fix that changes transaction processing would require an overwhelming majority to support it. Various people will have to upgrade their servers, the community will have to agree not to veto the feature. Unless there's a consensus that it's an emergency, the servers will wait until they see a stable majority for a period of time to prevent a change from being rushed through. Right now, that would slow development down significantly. But we're getting very close to being ready to flip that switch.

https://ripple.com/wiki/Change_Process

Absolutely. The running network is not decentralized today. But the design is and doesn't require any central authorities.

That's simply not true. You couldn't have a decentalized exchange by decentralizing Mt Gox, for example. It's not *designed* to be decentralized. It's design requires a central authority.

Of course not. But because we designed it so no authorities are required, it will be decentralized once that switch is flipped. Then there's no going back.

Good luck fighting them, the most devote people are ones holding onto small stashes of XRP (under 50,000) and they are the ones swallowing everything up. They are all over the forum and just wanna believe so bad, they beg for a few thousand XRP further reinforcing the "scarcity" of the mighty ripple. And now JoelKatz has admitted that XRP is meant to have value, but that's ok because he's sitting on 4 million dollars worth, of course he believes in the cause!

They even have the cheek to say Satoshi pre-mined his Bitcoin, when he put a lot of effort into making sure this wasn't the case.

Why all these people here are sucking up to a greedy for profit company I don't know. Andreessen Horowitz is making a mockery of you!


I wonder whats so hard about letting people become nodes and making the entire network decentralized? And the exchange system is not decentralized because it still requires you. JoelKatz, if the ripple team shut off the server running the ripple network would that exchange still work? Nope!

To have a decentralized network you need all its components to be decentralized, your smart and know this, stop lying to everyone. If one part of a "decentralized" network is centralized like your command over all ripple servers, then its not really decentralized is it?

It's design is decentralized. It doesn't require any central authorities of any kind. The currently operating network is centralized, but it will be a decentralized exchange system.