Ripple: A Distributed Exchange for Bitcoin - page 7.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: kelsey on May 20, 2013, 09:41:24 PM

Quote from: misterbigg on May 20, 2013, 01:10:27 PM

Quote from: HostFat on May 20, 2013, 01:08:46 PM

It's a really good business model, and they are making many people jealous for not being the first to come up with this idea Wink

You should instead be happy for them and waiting for the completion of this new toy that they are making and giving to the community!

I fully agree. Another pain point is that people who mine for Bitcoin are likely upset that Ripple's built in currency claims to have more utility than Bitcoin but require no mining, making the miners obsolete.

mining is half the fun, and its why bitcoin was/is a hit...the novelty of it for geeks, and those who got paid mostly deserved it.

yes, unless these guys mine they'll never understand what drives us miners. it's empowering for the individual.

kelsey

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

Quote from: misterbigg on May 20, 2013, 01:10:27 PM

Quote from: HostFat on May 20, 2013, 01:08:46 PM

It's a really good business model, and they are making many people jealous for not being the first to come up with this idea Wink

You should instead be happy for them and waiting for the completion of this new toy that they are making and giving to the community!

I fully agree. Another pain point is that people who mine for Bitcoin are likely upset that Ripple's built in currency claims to have more utility than Bitcoin but require no mining, making the miners obsolete.

mining is half the fun, and its why bitcoin was/is a hit...the novelty of it for geeks, and those who got paid mostly deserved it.

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1006

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

Saying that too much community input would slow down your development is a cop-out because you could release the code for people to review and ignore input...but that would also be somewhat awkward ignoring customer base input.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist
This list wouldn't have to exist if bitcoin was still centralized. There are several good and maybe even necessary items on that list that might never make it into bitcoin, thus weakening it, just because it is already completely open.
It's not my position to judge, still maybe this helps you understanding why ripple didn't release their full node code yet - to still have the freedom to implement changes of this kind.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: misterbigg on May 20, 2013, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: HorseRider on May 20, 2013, 03:44:05 PM

you all know that if you opened the source, there will not be much validators who joins your network, but there will lots of alternative Ripple-XRP system show up, and the ones who distribute the XRP in a predictable and fairly way will win the competition, and at the last, the 100% pre-mined XRP will has no value.

As a validator, I would prefer OpenCoin have a way to make money and pay lots of developers' salaries instead of the Bitcoin open source model where no company is able to profit directly and they have to go around begging for donations to pay Gavin.

this is just a sleezy way to describe the situation and represents a true lack of understanding of what open source represents. as if Bitcoin is having a problem with developers. pffft.

we just needed to voluntarily fund Gavin's position. the community has done just that; with no problem. now, even Garzik has found full employment with BitPay.

Bitcoin is doing fantastic with it's open source model and this weekend's Conference showed just that.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: HorseRider on May 20, 2013, 03:44:05 PM

you all know that if you opened the source, there will not be much validators who joins your network, but there will lots of alternative Ripple-XRP system show up, and the ones who distribute the XRP in a predictable and fairly way will win the competition, and at the last, the 100% pre-mined XRP will has no value.

As a validator, I would prefer OpenCoin have a way to make money and pay lots of developers' salaries instead of the Bitcoin open source model where no company is able to profit directly and they have to go around begging for donations to pay Gavin.

HorseRider

donator

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1001

Quote from: misterbigg on May 20, 2013, 02:14:46 PM

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 02:12:12 PM

Lol yes when they hold a huge amount of XRPs. Equivalent to premining an alt chain.

It would be equivalent if the only feature in Ripple was the built-in XRP currency. Alt coins don't track balances or have near instant confirmations. They also don't do away with wasteful proof of work. So I disagree that it is equivalent.

Yes, XRP are 100% pre-mined by OpenCoin. You just have to admit that. The ripple which tracks balances and keep records for the transaction history does not necessarily need a pre-mined XRP. The XRP should be generated in a more predictable and fairly way. However, the greedy and evil make you do the most ugly thing an alt coin could do and you just don't admit that you have pre-mined. And you all know that if you opened the source, there will not be much validators who joins your network, but there will lots of alternative Ripple-XRP system show up, and the ones who distribute the XRP in a predictable and fairly way will win the competition, and at the last, the 100% pre-mined XRP will has no value.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 20, 2013, 02:16:55 PM

essentially you're condoning a closed source system

As has been stated repeatedly, they plan to open the source code.

Quote

...that "traps" enough participants and their money into it to the point there is no turning back.

Who said that you have to put all your money into XRP? Did I say that? No. Did anyone say that you have to move significant funds into XRP in order to use Ripple? Nope, no one said that either. I'm also not suggesting that you buy XRP - did those words leave my keyboard? Nope. In fact I am very clear that XRPs are quite risky as an investment and that the source code needs to become open in order to succeed.

You are not arguing in good faith. You are merely repeating the same things over and over again without really adding anything into the discussion.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: misterbigg on May 20, 2013, 01:51:59 PM

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

I think more so that you can't release the code because others would simply fork it and make your code now worth less than before. Call it a form of dilution. You folks as a business have a vested interest as well as your investors not to open the source code.

This doesn't sound unreasonable. Let's pretend that its true - OpenCoin is waiting until enough assets are in the current ledger chain to where any fork will not have enough gateway support to be viable. So what? Is it wrong that OpenCoin wants to profit from their work?

wow, if that's your justification for what's supposedly a healthy fair system, that's a big problem

essentially you're condoning a closed source system that "traps" enough participants and their money into it to the point there is no turning back.

we have one of those already in what's called the Federal Reserve System.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 02:12:12 PM

Lol yes when they hold a huge amount of XRPs. Equivalent to premining an alt chain.

It would be equivalent if the only feature in Ripple was the built-in XRP currency. Alt coins don't track balances or have near instant confirmations. They also don't do away with wasteful proof of work. So I disagree that it is equivalent.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 20, 2013, 02:08:22 PM

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

Saying that too much community input would slow down your development is a cop-out because you could release the code for people to review and ignore input...but that would also be somewhat awkward ignoring customer base input.

We can't release the code for people to review and ignore input. If we ignored input, we'd be in the minority and be ignored. Ripple is based on consensus. As soon as the code is open sourced, other people start running validators, and people start trusting those validators, the network will be run by that consensus. We can make suggestions, but if they are rejected by that consensus, if we follow them, we will be ignored just like any Bitcoin transaction that doesn't meet the rules is ignored.

So then what is to stop regulators from shutting down open coin?

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: misterbigg on May 20, 2013, 01:51:59 PM

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

I think more so that you can't release the code because others would simply fork it and make your code now worth less than before. Call it a form of dilution. You folks as a business have a vested interest as well as your investors not to open the source code.

This doesn't sound unreasonable. Let's pretend that its true - OpenCoin is waiting until enough assets are in the current ledger chain to where any fork will not have enough gateway support to be viable. So what? Is it wrong that OpenCoin wants to profit from their work?

Lol yes when they hold a huge amount of XRPs. Equivalent to premining an alt chain.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

Saying that too much community input would slow down your development is a cop-out because you could release the code for people to review and ignore input...but that would also be somewhat awkward ignoring customer base input.

We can't release the code for people to review and ignore input. If we ignored input, we'd be in the minority and be ignored. Ripple is based on consensus. As soon as the code is open sourced, other people start running validators, and people start trusting those validators, the network will be run by that consensus. We can make suggestions, but if they are rejected by that consensus, if we follow them, we will be ignored just like any Bitcoin transaction that doesn't meet the rules is ignored.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 01:44:21 PM

I think more so that you can't release the code because others would simply fork it and make your code now worth less than before. Call it a form of dilution. You folks as a business have a vested interest as well as your investors not to open the source code.

This doesn't sound unreasonable. Let's pretend that its true - OpenCoin is waiting until enough assets are in the current ledger chain to where any fork will not have enough gateway support to be viable. So what? Is it wrong that OpenCoin wants to profit from their work?

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 20, 2013, 01:03:04 PM

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 11:47:32 AM

If OpenCoin is so "open" why isn't their source open yet?

Because as soon as the source code is open, we have to obtain a community consensus on every change that affects the way a transaction is processed. That would slow down our development tremendously.

Quote

Anyone with closed source code can claim whatever they want with no real proof.

No, because code is not the only form of proof.

Quote

Why not open the source so the truth of how ripple is truly structure in the code is exposed? This reminds me of solidcoin 2 and micro cash which was closed source.

We will and for just that reason. We have a list of things that need to get done before the server code can be open sources and we're running down that list as quickly as we can.

And that in lies the problem of a project that is open sourced with your expectations...you can't please everyone.

If it were open sourced you would have much more community input and development from people for free. To want to dictate who can and can't modify the code (who gets to type in the code modifications) but have it be open sourced makes no sense. Lol

Sounds like it is primed to be a dictatorial open sourced project.

I think more so that you can't release the code because others would simply fork it and make your code now worth less than before. Call it a form of dilution. You folks as a business have a vested interest as well as your investors not to open the source code.

Saying that too much community input would slow down your development is a cop-out because you could release the code for people to review and ignore input...but that would also be somewhat awkward ignoring customer base input.

Lolz

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: HostFat on May 20, 2013, 01:08:46 PM

It's a really good business model, and they are making many people jealous for not being the first to come up with this idea Wink

You should instead be happy for them and waiting for the completion of this new toy that they are making and giving to the community!

I fully agree. Another pain point is that people who mine for Bitcoin are likely upset that Ripple's built in currency claims to have more utility than Bitcoin but require no mining, making the miners obsolete.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4256

Merit: 1203

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 12:39:16 PM

Ripple is a business. Them releasing their source would be like Microsoft or any large software company releasing their code to the public which would make their product now worth a lot less because everyone could get their product for free essentially.

It's different.
Microsoft is taking money by selling his products.
OpenCoin isn't making money on this way, they will making money from XRP.
XRP will incresse their value by incresing adoption of Ripple. This is why Ripple is distributed "free".

The only thing that they will NOT distribute are their private keys of their accounts.

There are two resons so that it is still NOT opensource now:

- It will be a p2p decentralised network.
It's really hard to add features on a decentralised network, as it is now with Bitcoin (many big features are hard to add because they need hard forks)
Their are still testing it and adding other features.

- They are a business company, they need to take money from their work.
So they need to make their network big enough so that other clone-networks will not take too much space on the market.

These two points don't change the logic so that they will release the source code on next months, because, I repeat:
The only thing that they will NOT distribute are their private keys of their accounts.

It's a really good business model, and they are making many people jealous for not being the first to come up with this idea Wink

You should instead be happy for them and waiting for the completion of this new toy that they are making and giving to the community!

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: smoothie on May 20, 2013, 11:47:32 AM

If OpenCoin is so "open" why isn't their source open yet?

Because as soon as the source code is open, we have to obtain a community consensus on every change that affects the way a transaction is processed. That would slow down our development tremendously.

Quote

Anyone with closed source code can claim whatever they want with no real proof.

No, because code is not the only form of proof.

Quote

Why not open the source so the truth of how ripple is truly structure in the code is exposed? This reminds me of solidcoin 2 and micro cash which was closed source.

We will and for just that reason. We have a list of things that need to get done before the server code can be open sourced and we're running down that list as quickly as we can.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 20, 2013, 11:17:43 AM

1. if XRP's are being destroyed with every tx and there is only ever going to be the fixed supply, then what happens to Ripple when all the XRP have been destroyed?

You're talking hunreds of years down the road, maybe thousands. But if that ever happens, the stakeholders at that time might make XRP more divisible, they might make every XRP into 1,000 "new-XRP". Who knows, they might even make more XRP. People in the future can solve their problems however they think is best.

Quote

2. as the value of XRP gets pushed higher and higher via destruction, won't tx fees eventually become so huge as to be uneconomical for funding tx's?

No, because the community will probably drop them by consensus. But, yes, if people want that to happen, then it will happen. Nothing can stop people from doing dumb things if they want to.

Quote

3. won't OpenCoin eventually perform a dump of their XRP holdings to cash out? (he acknowledged that)

Why? Dumping will push the price way down. That doesn't make economic sense. Yes, OpenCoin could do that, but it would be against their interests.

Quote

Larson can't have it both ways. if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail. if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.

they are caught in a contradiction.

You are assuming OpenCoin will be a Ripple central authority forever. That is absolutely not our plan.

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1006

Quote from: SGExodus on May 20, 2013, 12:36:18 PM

I have to take back my words for calling you silly, because you are a complete RETARD to even compare ASIC to Opencoin.
[snip]
Ripple should stop bribing retard like you to promote their system. It's hurting them more than their badly written wiki and website.

*sigh*

The only people who I know of that received money to voice their opinion about Ripple are the ones paid by the operator(s) of the page "ripplescam.org". All XRP that I received were in the giveaway with no strings attached and I choose my words freely (both as in freedom and free beer...).

Creating a Ripple system is also not too difficult and the implementation by OpenCoin is also not the first one in existence. I am simply saying that ASICs are (mostly, as Avalon apparently released their sources) even more closed than OpenCoin and they are running Bitcoin right now. It doesn't matter if they are easy to make or hard to come by, at the moment most likely more than 50% of mining power is in the hands of advanced closed source chips and no matter how distributed and open the protocol above them is, there is a greater than 0 chance that these devices contain (intentionally or not) malicious code (in the form of synthesized hardware) that can severely harm the Bitcoin network.

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 20, 2013, 12:38:32 PM

i know b/c i looked at them just last week. i'm sure they're on the wiki the link of which i don't have right now.

Seems like they have a repo at github: https://github.com/BitSyncom/avalon-ref
From there (emphasis mine):

Quote

current version of FPGA bitstream contains licensed parts we can not open source at the moment, a licensed free version is being worked on that will be released in the future.

Looks like they have similar issues to OpenCoin (though probably rather library related, not hard fork/network rules related).
Anyways, thanks for the heads up, interesting stuff nevertheless!

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: Sukrim on May 20, 2013, 12:23:54 PM

Quote from: SGExodus on May 20, 2013, 12:09:26 PM

Quote from: Sukrim on May 20, 2013, 12:03:07 PM

Have you actually tried to get access to their server code or are you just reiterating over and over the same "arguments"? Will you change your stance once they are providing an Open Source server implementation?

Don't be silly. Why would a for-profit organisation ever release the server implementation? Where people will fork immediately and all their effort to scam the world with 100 billion premined XRP goes down the drain.

Well, as soon as there is a non-XRP fork with more than just a little attention, it is likely to be transaction-spammed into oblivion. XRP serve the same purpose as standard tape transactions and block size limits in Bitcoin: They are anti spam measurements. Also there is the expressed intent of OpenCoin to release the code.

About ASICs: They actually DO run the Bitcoin network right now. They run an open protocol (like for example HTTP) on a closed source machine (e.g. Microsoft IIS). You have NO IDEA what they might do in the future, no way of making sure they will play by the rules in the future and in comparison to OpenCoin no expressed intention at all by ASIC manufactureres to ever release any of their schematics.

The Ripple client (and some 3rd party re-implementations of it) is already open source, much like Bitcoin and the Bitcoin protocol itself. The validator (=server) code is as closed as are ASICs.

Ripple is already documented well enough that you might even start wirting your own server already. If you actually ask instead of crying about it on the forums, there is also a quite good chance that you get early access to their server code as well.

That's the issue. No one should HAVE to ask for the source if indeed the intention of the developers was to release it.

Satoshi didn't wait until someone asked for it in order for him to publicly post it.

Ripple is a business. Them releasing their source would be like Microsoft or any large software company releasing their code to the public which would make their product now worth a lot less because everyone could get their product for free essentially.

Topic: Ripple: A Distributed Exchange for Bitcoin - page 7. (Read 66657 times)