Topic: Ripple or Bitcoin - page 42. (Read 34110 times)

Ah right. Makes sense. This might be an advantage then because it would be more difficult to use a bug to mint coin than it would be to do so in something like BitCoin which allows minting.

If it's not open source what it it then? Surely it's not proprietary since the source code is available to the users.

In a sense you might be right, and you might not, do you know there aren't any other nodes than those under control of opencoin? Do you think that nobody took them on on the offer to get rippled on individual access?

They use cryptographic hashes for validation, besides pointless nit picking it is true, again what's the fuss?

The goverment could seize lots of things, your point? The goverment could also break into your home and steal your bitcoin wallet. Yes, I think that notion is equally ridiculous.
Your rambling about units and central servers do not even make sense.

Well they are claiming correctly if there really are nodes not in their control.

I care, you claim they are lying while you lack insufficient information to even make that assessment.


You have a strange eating habit ShadowOfRedHerring

OpenCoin doesn't "control" XRP in the sense that they can just send commands to the network to create new ones or arbitrarily adjust anyone's account balance. There's no transaction that means "create XRP." Even if you were to add such functionality yourself, you would have to convince everyone else running a validator that they should accept your change. And who would authorize the creation? No one would accept it.

Instead, I believe they constructed a ledger by hand that holds a 100 billion XRP balance in a designated account. Then they ran Ripple off of this ledger. If you query the validators and go back in history I believe you can trace all of the XRP in existence to that one account (it's mentioned in the wiki).

Anyone could of course fork Ripple once it's open sourced and make a brand new ledger but then the problem remains, who gets the 100 billion XRP? It makes the most sense for it to go to the people that wrote the software since they are the best positioned to keep improving it (and they already intimately know how it works).

You could try to remove the XRP entirely but that will create an enormous number of new problems such as what to do about connection spamming. It's easy to casually propose alternatives but they are difficult to get working right.

Ultimately any scheme to change either XRP's creation or distribution will likely fail, because there is already a growing body of businesses that are conducting commerce with the existing ledger chain.

That is NOT the definition of Open Source.
Bullshit.


Which means exactly that it is CURRENTLY centralized.
Double Bullshit with Extra Chips.


It matters, because they lie about it.
Bullshit #3 with extra Onion.


But it has "units", which could be counterfeited. For example, by government seizing ripple central servers.
4 Bullshits plus cola and mashed potatoes.


Does not matter as they claim otherwise on their site.
Bullshit #5 with some butter.


Who cares. They lie, they profit, they scam.
Bullshit #6 with italian pasta and salami.


My post is intentionally spreading the truth about the CURRENT STATE of affairs so less people will be scammed by lying Ripple fuckers and their propaganda tubes, like you are.

Total bullshits counted: 6
Will it be card or cash, sir ?

Sorry? Introducing more ripples in the system requires starting a new genesis ledger? That is interesting. Please explain.

There are already a lot of individuals and corporations which not only have access and are running the Ripple server, but also have money issued in the form of IOUs or are holding XRP. Since changing the total number of XRP would require starting over with a brand new genesis ledger, I highly doubt any of those entities would accept it.

-It is open source, just not published, you can get rippled if you ask opencoin for access
-correct, but it's designed to be decentralized, it just hasn't been published
-does that really matter? If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't, no fuss about it.
-this makes no sense whatsoever, it's not a currency but a debt based payment system, there is nothing to counterfeit.
-correct, they could, now before release change the number of XRP, but they would undermine their efforts, and after release the can not any more, and actually there might as well be nodes already not under the control of opencoin in which case, it's about as hard to do as in the beginnings of Bitcoin.

Bingo, It's not released yet.  
Your post is intentionally misleading by assuming the limited beta is the state of it's design.

Oh great, another Cripple discussion.
Let me just put this here:


Dry facts:
- Ripple is NOT open source
- Ripple is NOT decentralized
- Ripple does NOT use "the same underlying cryptography" as Bitcoin
- Ripple is NOT counterfeit proof
- Ripple CAN PRINT as much XRP as they want (they already did actually).

For more, check http://ripplescam.org/ and this topic



Also check out this lies on their website, while you still can.


(Yeah, like that GitHub repo is the WHOLE source)



Lies, lies lies, lies. Goddamn lies everywhere.

All i have to say is Liberty Reserve...same fate for Ripple.

Since you insist Hannah, I'm obliged to quote Baudelaire, dans le texte:
"Aimer les femmes intelligentes est un plaisir de pédéraste."

But I fully support your attempt at introducing some mix on here!

This brings an excellent opportunity for me to clarify some points:

A. Internet dork != entrepreneur; Internet dork != businessman; Website != business; etc. 

B. Bitcoin is not a democracy. What you like is immaterial. Nobody asked you, it's not here to be shaped by you, it's here to shape you.

C. Ripple is broken nonsense but complex enough to confuse Internet dorks who think they're entrepreneurs in charge of businesses on the strength they've made some website somewhere (at most). On top of that, there's a scamcoin layer which some people think will make them enough to allow them to exit at some point. It's pretty certain this will never happen (even if well positioned speculators may make a few bucks, like any HIYP/Ponzi in history).

This is all, now let's keep on yakking, it's the Interwebs after all.


Congrats, you get the cookie.


Name's Hannah, if you must. MP is my boss. MP is teh boss of us all.

Let me tell you, with no disrespect, that if you really were an entrepreneur, you wouldn't be that naive. Those who are buying into Ripple at this premature stage are either the naive/hipster types or the accomplices that Opencoin has managed to buy into the scheme. Once Opencoin releases the full spec and the source code of Ripple, we can start evaluating it and decide what its real value is. Before that, it is just vaporware speculation.

It is a fact that Mircea's arguments sometimes go a bit overboard and the personal accusations (maybe sometimes wrong) should be avoided, but if you can look behind the sarcasm then what you find is simple and basic logic. And guess what, at the end, logic always wins.
Ripple might have bought fanboys and convinced dodgy VCs into the scheme, but it doesn't change the foundations of what it relies on. Their algorithm is flaky to say the least.

I wouldn't go like Mircea and make personal accusations of scam against members of their team, or against the naive types that they have managed to buy out. Surely someone like David Schwartz is not malicious and he's the one being used here, not the scammer. Throughout his posts, he comes accross as a curious scientist eager to explore a novel type of consensus system. Obviously, I wouldn't put the guy who created the card exchange website and who is now fiddling around with VCs in the same category. Both of them surely would like to become richer, however... anyway, back to the argument.

For the lazy types who can't be bothered thinking too much, the reality is as follows: the algorithm that Ripple would like to use for their system has no stable fixed point. Not if it's open source, not if it's honest, not if it's decentralized. It boils down to a deeper and abstract (and unproven) argument, that I'd formally sum up as this: "only Proof-of-work cannot be faked". This, in turn, comes from a deeper and general law of the world we live in, the law of "conservation of energy". For those without any scientific background, this law implies that energy cannot be faked. This is why the consensus system of Bitcoin was made to rely on Proof-of-work (= energy) and nothing else.

Now, if you prefer to believe in the marketing of Ripple rather than the hard facts, logic and mathematics of Bitcoin, it's entirely up to you. I would strongly advise people to let the Ripple developers do their work first though. Until they release a working (and open source) product, as far as I'm concerned Ripple doesn't exist yet.

I actually didn't realize that. Great point.

OpenCoin is linked "for profit" business. The PR that misterbigg displays tell us that this is going absolutely nowhere. I and everyone I know have already unloaded every single ripple. It is a scam.

I don't think it will ever be possible for Opencoin to prove how many coins they actually gave away. Even if they released a list of all the addresses to which they sent XRP, these addresses could just belong to Opencoin themselves. In order to prove a distribution that would be considered fair by the majority of users, they would have to reveal the identity behind those adresses, which is not going to happen in such a semi-anonymous system. The intransparency is unavoidable, I guess.

Indeed. It's already causing a massive bubble where Ripple is valued at a higher market cap than Bitcoin (a ridiculous assumption for an unproven system both technically and legally with near 0 acceptance and usage compared to Bitcoin). They have no planned distribution, and the market doesn't even know the current state of distribution and also lacks a complete picture of past distribution and its rate. How many XRP does OpenCoin still hold? 60%? 95%? 99%? Who knows!

OpenCoin is anything but open, they are completely intransparent about their "monetary policy". I don't know if willfully or out of incompetence, because I'm certain it will end up hurting Ripple.


Ideally, one could have created an S-curve distribution that fits the actual adoption of a technology. However, it's impossible to time it correctly, and the Bitcoin network cannot measure the state of adoption and then speed up its curve.

I think that front-loading coin generation creates a "sense of urgency" which stimulates adoption. If the coins were loaded towards the end then most people might take a "wait and see attitude," in which case Bitcoin might have never gotten off the ground.

What makes bitcoin special and new is the technology. The block reward reduction and limited supply are only parameters. And I think the idea of creating coins fast in the beginning and then more slowly is completely wrong. It drives bitcoin into the domain of pyramid schemes rather than a currency. I do not know if that is what Satoshi wanted, but i believe it was just a bad choice from his/their side.

I think you could argue that Ripple would get funded without a cache of XRP's just as easily. The obvious winners are gateways and exchanges. Each of them would have a profit motive to support development. Then the Ripple team could just charge a transaction fee for using the system, that would allow for a profit motive and VC investment as well. Or they could charge an ongoing Gateway/Exchange fee rather than a transaction fee.

The chosen solution -- we'll distribute the XRP's as we see fit -- seems rather one-sided on its face. Ultimately, I think the idea that the system is distributed by handing out XRP's and spreading the risk so to speak is a chimera. Whether the target is Ripple, the Gateways, or the Exchanges, governments have an easy target to regulate transactions from.