Topic: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and Ripple inc. - page 3. (Read 8851 times)

If a gateway is forced to do so because of legal reasons, they most likely will stop honoring their old IOUs for redemption and create new IOUs.

The "freeze" ability hasn't been implemented due to lack of demand. The restrict ability is implemented, but no gateways (that I know of, anyway) currently use it. These options have to be enabled for an account prior to any assets being issued by that account. So if a gateway chooses to use either of these features, everyone will know it before they choose to use that gateway. We don't want to tell other people how they have to use Ripple. We want to enable people to do what they want to do. Of course, we do want everyone to know what they're getting into and we want the rules to be hard to change after the game has started.

From the official ripple wiki.

From the official ripple wiki.

Just so I dont assume anything...what is your problem with it?

Just so I dont assume anything...what is your problem with it?

Gateways must of course follow all local regulations.

Possible KYC / AML support:

Restricted issuance of IOUs
    The gateway may restrict the accounts to which it sends IOUs. For instance, it may limit sending to those account for which KYC requirements have been met.
Restricted holding of IOUs
    The gateway may restrict hold of its IOUs to pre-approved accounts. See Authorized accounts
IOU freezing
    Not implemented. The gateway may freeze an account's ability to transfer their IOUs.

Is this not a deal breaker for anyone else? Shit this is the kinda problem I was talking about. You guys are hung up on lines of code, dude comes out and says this and all I hear is crickets

Gold is just a promise to get something of actual value. I know you will say it has actual value but it has value for the same reason bitcoin has value because of our shared belief in its value.

People cant live in gold they cant eat gold you cant put it an engine and go places with it you cant burn it to warm yourself up if you where freezing to death you cant drink it if you dying from dehydration.

Like I said look up the credit theory of money.


 "The Credit Theory is this: that a sale and purchase is the exchange of a commodity for credit. From this main theory springs the sub-theory that the value of credit or money does not depend on the value of any metal or metals, but on the right which the creditor acquires to "payment," that is to say, to satisfaction for the credit, and on the obligation of the debtor to "pay" his debt and conversely on the right of the debtor to release himself from his debt by the tender of an equivalent debt owed by the creditor, and the obligation of the creditor to accept this tender in satisfaction of his credit."

There is a little bit of disagreement when it comes to commodity money like gold, but in reality no matter the medium of exchange it is just a promise that you will be able to get something that you value in exchange for giving up something to someone else that they value.

prom·ise
ˈpräməs/
noun
1.
a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen.
"what happened to all those firm promises of support?"
synonyms:   word (of honor), assurance, pledge, vow, guarantee, oath, bond, undertaking, agreement, commitment, contract, covenant More
the quality of potential excellence.
"he showed great promise even as a junior officer"
synonyms:   potential, ability, aptitude, capability, capacity More
an indication that something specified is expected or likely to occur.
"the promise of peace"
synonyms:   indication, hint, suggestion, sign More
verb
verb: promise; 3rd person present: promises; past tense: promised; past participle: promised; gerund or present participle: promising
1.
assure someone that one will definitely do, give, or arrange something; undertake or declare that something will happen.
"he promised to forward my mail"
synonyms:   give one's word, swear, pledge, vow, undertake, guarantee, contract, engage, give an assurance, commit oneself, bind oneself, swear/take an oath, covenant; More
archaic
pledge (someone, esp. a woman) to marry someone else; betroth.
"I've been promised to him for years"
2.
give good grounds for expecting (a particular occurrence or situation).
"forthcoming concerts promise a feast of music from around the world"
synonyms:   indicate, lead one to expect, point to, denote, signify, be a sign of, be evidence of, give hope of, bespeak, presage, augur, herald, bode, portend; More

Avoiding regulation is not one of our goals. In fact, we're working very hard to figure out how everyone from individuals to financial institutions can use crypto-currencies while complying with existing regulations

That is not the problem with the current economic system the problem is that it is a ponzi scheme that is dependent on ever expanding debt so that people can make payments on principle plus interest payments due on the principle. All money is and has always been IOU's all money is a promise. Even gold  

Not really, most XRPs won't be distributed,  most people have not written down their secret keys (no matter what wording you use, users are stupid. source: inputs.io support dealing with users who didn't write down their recovery keys), ripple.com/client would be down, wallet blobs would be down, etc.

But isn't the entire ripple network based on trust of other users?

Saying if "they'll keep it going" is like saying that people will never be untrustworthy. Not to mention the large stash of "premined" XRPs you folks still hold and "promise" not to dump on the market. That involves trust too.

The IOU system is a flawed system with our current monetary system already. It almost sounds like you folks are mimicking the credit rating system to determine "trust" if I had to use an analogy.

Okay so it isn't...currently...decentralized. yet I keep hearing the sales pitch that it is. I was there at Bitcoin Conference in May where your own CEO who spoke on the alt-panel claimed it to be decentralized.

Has this mis-speak not  happened?

But isn't the entire ripple network based on trust of other users?

Saying if "they'll keep it going" is like saying that people will never be untrustworthy. Not to mention the large stash of "premined" XRPs you folks still hold and "promise" not to dump on the market. That involves trust too.

The IOU system is a flawed system with our current monetary system already. It almost sounds like you folks are mimicking the credit rating system to determine "trust" if I had to use an analogy.

Okay so it isn't...currently...decentralized. yet I keep hearing the sales pitch that it is. I was there at Bitcoin Conference in May where your own CEO who spoke on the alt-panel claimed it to be decentralized.

Has this mis-speak not  happened?

If we shut down, the network will continue so long as people are interested in continuing it. If it solves real problems for real people, they'll keep it going. If not, what difference does it make? Avoiding regulation is not one of our goals. In fact, we're working very hard to figure out how everyone from individuals to financial institutions can use crypto-currencies while complying with existing regulations and working to prevent new regulations that stifle innovation.

It's designed to operate as a full decentralized network. It is not all the way there yet. Open sourcing the server is one step. An infrastructure for managing validator lists without a central authority is the next big step.

Well, we can start the process by convincing a number of distinct organizations to run validators, publish lists of validators maintained using an open process, and so on. But I do agree that real decentralization will require people to choose to adopt Ripple and choose to participate. Basically, it's like the way Bitcoin became decentralized -- it took large numbers of different groups to run miners, participate in the development of the software, and form a robust community that can make decisions about the direction the network should go.

It's designed to operate as a full decentralized network. It is not all the way there yet. Open sourcing the server is one step. An infrastructure for managing validator lists without a central authority is the next big step.

If we shut down, the network will continue so long as people are interested in continuing it. If it solves real problems for real people, they'll keep it going. If not, what difference does it make? Avoiding regulation is not one of our goals. In fact, we're working very hard to figure out how everyone from individuals to financial institutions can use crypto-currencies while complying with existing regulations and working to prevent new regulations that stifle innovation.

You can see how much outstanding credit they have and how much of ot they've used. You can also see how other people value the assets they issue. (This is the same way the unusually high price of BTC at Mt. Gox leads you to believe there's some reason people value their USD at less than face value.)

It's possible that in the future tools might allow you to evaluate whether to trust people based solely on their behavior inside the network. For example, say you see someone who issues an asset that's very liquid -- you can easily sell it. And say that allowing them to we you a dollar would save you ten cents on a transaction. You might elect to accept that risk. After a while, and after this trust line has produced some value for you, you might raise the trust to, say $5. It may be such that even if they default on the whole $5, you're still up overall because the trust line made payments cheaper for you.

But this future may never happen. I think it's likely that for the foreseeable future, you'll need reasons outside the network itself if you don't want to take unreasonable risks.

One reason is that this can be gamed. I can issue bitcoins and offer to trade $130 for them. I can then create a lot of accounts that also offer to trade $130 for them. This might make you think that it's a liquid asset. But once you agree to hold it, I can pull all those offers. Now in theory you could check the people who placed the offers and use heuristics to make sure they're legitimate. And certain types of transactions (such as those that pay a transfer fee to a gateway) can only be faked at a cost.

But for now, we suggest people only create pathways to businesses that they have a reason to believe will continue to redeem as they've agreed to.