Topic: ripple: let's test it! - page 29. (Read 43945 times)

Re gateway default...

Remember last time bitcoin was up near $32 ?

I doubt it was concerns about its baked in block size limit that caused the massive loss of confidence that ended up taking until very soon now, any day now, to get back that level of confidence.

I suspect a lot of it was the huge defaults, whether premeditated or due to sheer incompetence or due simply to being out there on the internetz for the whole internetz of haxors to PWN.

So yeah, I think we have seen that major defaults can cost quite a bit of public confidence resulting in even years, not mere months of work to regain that confidence.

-MarkM-

People are extending credit at present to test the system - not to make a profit.  Provided they do it with sums they don't mind losing that's no problem.

The Ripple system doesn't force you to extend trust without charging interest (or gaining benefit in some way): that some people are doing so isn't a failure of the system, more a failure of people to realise that doing so isn't actually a great idea.

Most people using the system will likely NEVER actually have a good reason to extend trust to anyone other than a gateway.

You have to think of extending trust as being the same as providing a line of credit: and price it appropriately.  The use of the word "Trust" is perhaps unfortunate - as a lot of users are going to misunderstand it and then get bitten hard by it.

If I 'trusted' you enough to lend you 10 BTC I absolutely would NOT extend 10 BTC of 'trust' to you in the Ripple system for free.  I'd maybe do it if you paid me a 1 BTC fee up front and agreed that the line of credit would only be available for 2 months.  That's how I see Ripple being used - not as some WOT type thing with lines of credit in place everywhere all the time.

Where I see massive issues is the first time a gateway gets hacked/gos rogue and is no longer able (or willing) to honour its IOUs.  In my view, Ripple's long-term future hinges very much on that not happening until it's gained very significant traction.  An early gateway default would kill it.

Why would anyone extend credit to friends of friends without a return ?

To me, the only people who would benefit from this is the people receiving free loans. Just the kind of people who wouldn't pay it back.

I'm looking at the people behind it and they look very credible, so I'll have to assume I don't get it.

So please give it to me simply.

If you extend a 1 BTC line of trust to someone, they can use it at any time.  Would assume that's why it's advised not to do it until you understand what's happening.

What seems to have happened here is:

User A extended 1 BTC worth of trust to user B
User B used that trust to place an order for 10K XRP for 1 BTC
User A was notified that 1 BTC of theirs was being used to back an order for 10k XRP

Where the system fails a bit is in not notifying user A WHY their 1 BTC is about to be (possibly - if the order fills) used.

Bottomline is if you extend trust to others for X BTC then be aware that at ANY time X BTC (or X BTC worth of IOUs) you own can vanish to be used by those others (and would be replaced by IOUs from the people you extended the trust to).

When you trust someone for X BTC think of it is as you saying "You're entitled to take X BTC from me at any time you choose in return for an IOU as I trust you to repay it".  When you think of it in those terms you'll soon realise you shouldn't be extending trust other than when you WANT it to be used.

Trust isn't some vague thing like on the WOT - it has a defined and realisable value.  If you trust someone (person X) then someone else who doesn't but who trusts you (person Y) can use your trust to lend to X with YOU responsible for repayment to Y (and YOU assume the risk of default by X - as Y holds an IOU from you and you hold an IOU from X).

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm also new to Ripple (and not handing out any trust until I need to).

Bear in mind that the trust lines are there to be used, even while you are not online and so on.

Possibly with the various lines of trust you lot have set up among yourselves RIpple has found routes you did not think of or know of. If none of you has complete information about all the lines the others have set up, but Ripple does, maybe none of you individually even has enough information about the combined trust network you collectively have built so Ripple is able to surprise you. Indeed presumably it is hoped and intended that pleasant surprises become more common as trust networks become richer and more connected.

So there probably should come a time when Ripple starts getting what we want done done in surprising ways whose details might involve obscure links between people none of whose direct trust line partners we even know or even know of.

(Until we fire up fancy trust web browsing widgets and so on and go exploring what is actually out there, that is, of course.)

-MarkM-

Strange indeed, I have no clue. Maybe this stuff is all explained on the wiki, but I cant imagine they expect everyone to study that thing like the bible before they start using it.

ok, so you placed an order. No inidication (afaik) that any trade happened.

still totally unclear why that would result in some automatic order generated on my side. Maybe it's just your order displayed in my notifications for reference that someone put an order regarding "my currency"?

ok, I might've found some bug... or not. Oddities at least.

I know I sent BTC 0.1 to ribuck. As a result my trust to him "used negatively" as can be seen here:



I also made a trade "on bitinstant", trading BTC 0.1 for USD 2.97.

I earlier withdrew 0.5 bitinstant BTC to my ripple wallet, so I should now have BTC 0.39.

However, my balance says BTC 0.38.

The wallet history is confusing (maybe wrong, not sure):



It doesn't show any signs of the currency trade I made (it's reflected in my balances, though). This might be just the way it currently is, of course (trades not displayed in wallet history)

Now, I might've sent the BTC 0.01 to ribuck twice, I'm not sure. That's what I would usually assume... however: I've seen many notifications appear multiple times (2-3 times) before:



that's odd to say the least and it leads me to the suspicion that maybe my transaction to ribuck was entered only once but executed twice. I don't know.

@ribuck: how much BTC did you receive from me?

Yeah, sort of:

I tried to extend some EUR trust to you, it failed:

I can't find anything on the trade tab. Tried switching issuer to "lebing" and pair to "USD/XRP", but nothing.

So I tried to trade bitstamp USD for bitstamp BTC:



seems the order got placed, but not matched yet and no trade made...



ooops: what's this. amount: BTC 2.30? I entered BTC 0.1. Weird. better cancel.

EDIT: correction: it seems a trade actually happened: I have 2.97 USD now and BTC 0.38 left.

So it seems I traded 0.1 BTC for 2.97 as requested by my order.

Two things I don't understand:

• Why was there (after the trade seems to have happened) this order entry seen in the second screenshot (which I canceled)
• Where can I see the transactions resulting from the trade? Nothing visible in the history.

This blows my mind. I'm quite sure this is related somehow.

So did you actually make a trade of something against "BTC molecular"?

Can you make a screenshot.

I hadn't even discovered how one could change the issuer on trade page. Seems I can "trade on bitinstant":

thanks. I sent 0.01. It worked this time.

I assume you trust bitstamp with BTC?

Consider them a donation.

I succesfully deposited btc to bitstamp that i had prevoiusly withdrawn, so i think that is a temporary glitch.

I'm not sure if its related, but I set up a "trade" using your currency as the base (it was default, I only noticed it after creating the transaction). For 1 btc to 10000 XRP. Maybe it auto accepted the trade for you? Check out the trade tab under advanced to see if the offer is there for you... if so, maybe send a bug to [email protected] to tell them you didnt accept it.

this:



concerns me. I didn't enter these orders. What are the yellow entries about?

This looks to me like XRP is used as a settlement currency somehow (I thought it wouldn't play that role) and I implicitly value them as shown (which is not the case).

EDIT: however, I _did_ enter this order:



Does this somehow imply the "yellow" ones? Am confused.

logout/login first seemed to do the trick and it seemed as thought the transaction worked (no error display). However: nothing in history or balance.

Trying again turned up the same error.

So I guess there needs to be some possible chain of trust from the recipient of the BTC 0.01 to bitstamp (issuer of IOU), right? This doesn't explain why deposit to my bitstamp wallet wouldn't work, though, since bitstamp surely trusts itself implicitly somehow, right?

Does anyone trust bitstamp with BTC so I can try sending that person some?

To expand on the thoughts of anonymous quoted above. I would add that a distinction must be made between Ripple as a system and XRPs. XRPs are just like oil enabling the Ripple machine to work.

The value of Ripple is that it enables dynamic creation of money (denominated in whatever) by the people. All the people need is to extend or obtain trust to or from someone and viola they have created "money as debt" all by themselves without involvement of any bank.

The magic of Ripple as money is in "money velocity". A group of market participants can create X BTC of "debt money" and then conduct X*N worth of commerce using this money. The process does not necessarily must involve collateral. Businesses are routinely extend credit to their clients. This is exactly the same action as extending trust to someone in Ripple. However, unlike current banking system where the banking cartel has monopolized the "money circulation" process (SWIFT), in Ripple money are being circulating by the system automatically, in decentralized fashion, without banks necessarily getting involved.

This means that Ripple participants can create a little bit of money, just enough for a typical billing cycle. For example, someone who lives "hand to mouth" it would be an amount equal to weekly or monthly salary. Thus this person himself would create enough money for him and this amount would be enough to enable all his day to day transactions. These money will be reused and circulated week after week and month after month. Money need to be created by extending trust but once created they can circulate in the system forever. After all every transaction is simply an adjustment of IOU marker, which goes back and forth.

When the banks are criticized in videos such as "money as debt" it is often held against the banks that they operate cooperative system where as a combined entity they create all that visibility of loaning money to people while in fact they full know that actually this money will immediately end up with some other member of this bank cooperative and as such this transaction will be net neutral for the banks plus whatever interest they get from the borrowers who are none the wiser. Guess what? The banks operate a Ripple like system between themselves. They call Ripple trust "correspondence relationship".

  Now ripple enables everyone to access and create money as needed and enabling commerce while disruptively disintermediating the banksters even further (Bitcoin was the first punch in this double imact combo).


P.S. One of the reasons why Bitcoin became all of the sudden more valuable recently could be a new use for it in securing Ripple trust and use as a collateral. This use removes Bitcoin from circulation and necessarily causes its price appreciation.

On my copy of the client, wihch is on my own machine, I'd basically restart it: visit its homepage and see if it still thought I was logged in or offered me a chance to log in (implying I was not logged in). If it still thought I was logged in, yet still didn't seem to have remembered all my whatever (such as maybe yours is not remembering you actually having got what you are trying to send out or something like that) I'd explicitly log the heck out and log back in and see if that would help.

Does the person you are trying to send the IOUs to trust that gateway's bitcoin IOUs? Is their trust line already full with no trust left to accept more?

-MarkM-