Topic: Ripple and Trust (Read 4030 times)

Destination tags are mandatory when sending to Bitstamp. Without a destination tag, Bitstamp would not know which account to credit.

I can't seem to get a donation and I'm trying to write up a blog post about XRP

Okay, not sure if you solved this yet, but destination codes might be mandatory for sending to bitstamp.

Hmm, I think this confused me more to be quite honest Although I do actually understand now

Liam

Everything is failing just the same, I'm afraid.

So the workflow that is failing is, in a nutshell:

walletA trusts bitstamp for 1 BTC
walletB trusts bitstamp for 1 BTC
wallet A gets a 0.1 BTC transfer from bitstamp
wallet A cannot send any BTC to wallet B - Paths are calculated but when sending one of partial path or fee insufficient will be thrown.

Are you able to run the workflow described yourself?

[edit] - above is the simplified workflow that is failing now, the original issue was slightly more complicated:

walletA trusts bitstamp for 1 BTC
walletB trusts walletA for 1 BTC
walletB trusts bitstamp for 1 BTC
walletA gets a 0.1 BTC transfer from bitstamp
walletA sends 0.05 BTC to walletB - it appears as walletA BTC IOU
walletB cannot send any BTC to bitstamp - Paths are calculated but when sending one of partial path or fee insufficient will be thrown.

Yes, 0.1, sorry for confusing things. 0.15 was on the other use case. Still, if you look at the transfer I'm attempting you'll see I only try to move 0.019960 BTC (that's 0.02 minus the 0.2%) and that fails. I try a second transfer for 0.08 minus 0.2% and that fails in exactly the same way. I never try to move more than 0.0998.

I'll try everything from the start in a bit and will let you know if the result is somehow different.

The only BTC funds that rKLw2zHgA31nRZN3erfZkfR8uhAkQ8s95P holds are 0.1 rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B IOUs. The issuer of those IOUs charges a .2% transfer fee when its IOUs are moved from one customer to another, so the most you can deliver is 0.0998003992015968 BTC.

It's pretty much the exact same, I'm afraid. Full amount (0.15) complains about partial amounts, less (0.1) complains about fees.

I created another wallet for holding funds for one of my services, and for playing with the RPC interface. I was trying to make payments in very much the same manner, i.e:
- Deposited BTC to Bitstamp
- Withdrawn from Bitstamp to Ripple
- Tried to send from Ripple to another account that trusts Bitstamp (but not the sender)

{'Account': 'rKLw2zHgA31nRZN3erfZkfR8uhAkQ8s95P', 'Destination': u'rGwUWgN5BEg3QGNY3RX2HfYowjUTZdid3E', 'Amount': {'currency': u'BTC', 'value': '0.019960', 'issuer': u'rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B'}, 'TransactionType': 'Payment'}

{u'status': u'success', u'type': u'response', u'result': {u'tx_json': {u'status': u'invalid', u'Account': u'rKLw2zHgA31nRZN3erfZkfR8uhAkQ8s95P', u'Fee': u'10', u'hash': u'097BDC7AA77F3FDF7A73D850D69F70AEF8AC7705E2616D5BB6E287EB3886B183', u'Sequence': 10, u'SigningPubKey': u'02BCB4677183FD6B5654E10AED5AD04007480950C2652852DFAE4AE4C98A9D3EF0', u'Destination': u'rGwUWgN5BEg3QGNY3RX2HfYowjUTZdid3E', u'Amount': {u'currency': u'BTC', u'value': u'0.01996', u'issuer': u'rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B'}, u'Flags': 0, u'TxnSignature': u'30450220395913ABE851C103E72C8F29531EFF745B82C35DCE6DB1A22E8B78D24B71032B0221009 89E7089D9A0D357908DDB78C9052F74B8FB81C7F2B847677B75F02CF80E4489', u'TransactionType': u'Payment'}, u'engine_result_message': u'Path could not send full amount.', u'engine_result_code': 101, u'tx_blob': u'1200002200000000240000000A61D4071759F6F8C00000000000000000000000000042544300000 000000A20B3C85F482532A9578DBB3950B85CA06594D168400000000000000A732102BCB4677183 FD6B5654E10AED5AD04007480950C2652852DFAE4AE4C98A9D3EF0744730450220395913ABE851C 103E72C8F29531EFF745B82C35DCE6DB1A22E8B78D24B71032B022100989E7089D9A0D357908DDB 78C9052F74B8FB81C7F2B847677B75F02CF80E44898114C9122B5BAFD0FF74863351B569DF2894B 6A011FE8314A6473D67D54E36ED960CC45526D78345C96FAE5A', u'engine_result': u'tecPATH_PARTIAL'}}

The rKLw account has 0.15 btc IOU from Bitstamp, the rGwU account trusts Bitstamp for 1 BTC, the rvYA account is Bitstamp. Am I doing something wrong or is this just another case of bad path resolve?

We believe we fixed the bug that was causing paths not to be found or inadequate paths to be selected. Please let me know if you're still experiencing the problem.

These are the only BTC balances I have. (Bitstamp is rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B). I would think it should work, yes? Or is more information required?



I have extended a small amount of btc trust to many forum members. No open orders.

For TTBit to be able to send 0.15 BTC to nelisky...

1) nelisky previously trusts TTBit/BTC

or

2) nelisky previously trusts bitstamp/BTC (which TTBit currently holds)

Yes, if you trusted Bitstamp. The payment would still have taken place, but it would have used Bitstamp IOUs and cost a tiny bit more.

At all times TTBit held more than enough Bitstamp IOUs. Could TTBit have sent the BTC IOU if I didn't trust TTBit/BTC?

I will try again today and if still failing will PM you all the details.

Hmm, it sounds like that last send should have worked. When TTBit sent .15 BTC to nelisky, that was likely TTBit/BTC that got sent, since nelisky takes those. So when nelisky tries to send .1 BTC to Bitstamp, nelisky must use TTBit IOUs through TTBit to Bitstamp. Did TTBit hold a little over .1 bistamp BTC? Perhaps TTBit just didn't have enough Bistamp/BTC IOUs.

It could also be that our pathfinding found an incorrect or inferior path. We have some pathfinding issues that we're still working on. If you PM me the actual amounts and Ripple addresses, I can actually manually ask the system to compute the various paths and parameters and see if it's doing the right thing.

I'm a little lost here. I've been trying to play around with someone I trust IRL (TTBit) and we managed to understand a bit more of the system's workings but got stuck in this workflow (value are bogus, but relatively equal to what we're doing, and we all trust each other and bitstamp):

TTBit deposited BTC to Bitstamp
TTBit sent BTC from Bitstamp to Ripple
-- at this point TTBit has 2 BTC of green line on ripple BTC trust --
TTBit sent 0.15 BTC to nelisky
nelisky tries to send 0.15 BTC to bitstamp, which fails with "Fees are insufficient"
nelisky tries to send 0.10 BTC to bitstamp, which fails with "Path could not send partial amount"

So what are we missing here?

XRP is the pivotal point of ripple system. Not discussing it would be a very shortsighted strategy. Once they open the ripple server anyone can fork it and do the right thing!

You do know that XRP aren't suppose to be a currency so disturbing them in that proof of work situation like bitcoin or litecoin would do no good. XRP are more like way you pay fees and get your account on the ledger. So giving them out would make the most sense since they will most likely represent another currency.

BULLSHIT

XRP could easily be distributed via proof of work. Miners would then sell XRPs for IOUs of their choice on the open market using Ripple's order book. Then we would have a truly free market for XRPs, and they would quickly converge on the market clearing price perfectly balancing demand with supply. Anyone could jump into the mining game. In fact, all existing Bitcoin miners and mining pools would have a great incentive to merge-mine for Ripple XRPs. This miner revenue from producing XRPs would not only ensure that the XRPs are distributed in the most fair way possible but also improve the security of the Bitcoin network by increasing the profitability of SHA-256 based mining.

Edit: Oops...re-reading your post I see you said that "pre-mining" is the only way for the founders to enrich themselves by taking advantage of the asymmetry of information. I guess you're right. But still, proof of work would have been a lot more fair.

My understanding is that developing XRP into a more or less functional currency is a monetization strategy of OpenCoin founders. They were very careful not to discuss it in public, and Joel Katz even mentioned that he is prohibited from discussing it here on Bitcointalk.

The fact of the matter is, OpenCoin has very little choice in this respect, some sort of "pre-mining" is the only viable monetization strategy for distributed platform such as Bitcoin or (potentially) distributed platform such as Ripple. Bitcoin-based premined altcoins tried this strategy and failed, but they did not bring any essential value to cryptocurrency ecosystem to justify pre-mined bonanza for their founders.

Ripple, on the other hand, has the promise of creating fully decentralized exchange ecosystem as well as decentralized instant payment framework. Thus solving two main problems of Bitcoin community: dependency on fiat exchanges and blockchain bloat. So, they may yet succeed where others utterly failed.

Anyone from Ripple developers willing to comment my suggestions above?