Pages:
Author

Topic: Ripple Q & A @ Joel Katz and Ripple inc. - page 6. (Read 8851 times)

vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 09:57:12 PM
#19
Quote
Having multiple validators does make it more decentralized compared to one, but it is hardly decentralized when you compare it to something else
At one point bitcoin was 5 nerds building a network no network starts off decentralized
That's true, but how is Ripple going to be decentralized?

Take the barrier of entry. The Bitcoin network has a very low barrier to entry, being that if you run Bitcoin-Qt, the recommended client of that time, you are now part of the network. The current recommended client on Bitcoin.org, MultiBit still makes you part of the network. With Ripple, the recommended client, ripple.com/client does not make you part of the network, and does not allow you to choose your own validators. Ripple inherently favors centralization.

Next, assuming you've built Rippled and you've configured it to become a validator. At this point in time, you have no actual power over the ripple consensus system. Users must add your node to their UNL. However, if they do not have OpenCoin nodes in their UNL and you do not too, then you will end up with a fragmented network. This is purely academic as the majority of Ripple users are using the web client, which does not give them the ability to choose their own validators.

At the heart of Ripple, it is about having trusted third parties validate transactions and prevent double spends. JoelKatz is arguing that Ripple is decentralized because there will not be a central entity that will have administrative control over the Ripple network, however the Ripple structure inherently favors more centralization, especially with the light client situation.

I also believe that a trust free solution is inherently more decentralized than a solution that requires trust, even if granting trust is decentralized (which isn't with Ripple at it's current stage).

I'd like to the abstract of the Bitcoin paper, note the last line:

Quote
Abstract.
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

A false comparison would be saying that Bitcoin requires trusting numerous third parties. Bitcoin does not require trusting third parities - it requires trusting cryptography (namely, SHA256 hash collisions) and cryptography exclusively. Ripple does use cryptography (like your bank uses cryptography to secure your online banking), however it still requires you to trust third parties. With commerce, you have to trust the seller that they won't defraud you, but we're talking about third parties.

It is possible to have a somewhat decentralized system that is not trust free, but that's not the case with Ripple's defaults. OpenPGP's web of trust does not have defaults, and all OpenPGP-compliant implementations include a way for you to add your own vetted certificates.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
September 26, 2013, 09:27:31 PM
#18
Quote
Having multiple validators does make it more decentralized compared to one, but it is hardly decentralized when you compare it to something else
Quote




At one point bitcoin was 5 nerds building a network no network starts off decentralized
  


^ what am I doing wrong? quote in square brackets before and after the first line only yields this result
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
September 26, 2013, 09:25:09 PM
#17
This conversation has become way to technical for me. Please give an analogy. Laymens terms guys. We know that the two of you get please include the rest of us.

I dont see any reason that a centralized system can become decentralized.  TF it sounds like the man is saying that yes they control the network for now but are working to change that.

I know you say the wiki says it isnt possible but is also says it is closed source, which as of today is not true  
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 09:19:39 PM
#16
I'm making a genuine attempt to discuss issues with you honestly. If you aren't going to do the same, I'll stop wasting my time. The issue was administrative control. You raised a legitimate point and I rebutted it. You are welcome to defend your claim or acknowledge that it's incorrect. Then you are welcome to move onto something else. But you are *not* welcome to change the subject when your claims are refuted and ignore the fact that they were refuted.
I agree. You're claiming that Ripple is decentralized because no single entity has administrative control. That is true, however I disagree on that no single entity having total control makes it decentralized:

Quote
Decentralization is not a boolean. When you have "11 out of 20 entities" must agree (or 1 out of 1 entities like now), is that really decentralized when you compare it to Bitcoin's "6600 out of 13200 entities" must agree?

Having multiple validators does make it more decentralized compared to one, but it is hardly decentralized when you compare it to something else.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
September 26, 2013, 09:10:51 PM
#15
Decentralization is not a boolean. When you have "11 out of 20 entities" must agree (or 1 out of 1 entities like now), is that really decentralized when you compare it to Bitcoin's "6600 out of 13200 entities" must agree?
I agree. Ripple was designed to be decentralized and is not really all the way there yet.

Quote
The Bitcoin genesis block was intentionally unspendable - it is not added to the list of outputs, and Bitcoin clients will reject any transactions that tries so.

Please make your genesis XRPs unspendable, or stop comparing apples to oranges.
I'm making a genuine attempt to discuss issues with you honestly. If you aren't going to do the same, I'll stop wasting my time. The issue was administrative control and decentralization. You raised a criticism that Ripple cannot be decentralized which I rebutted it by pointing out that it's the norm that some entity holds administrative control over a system until it's decentralized. You are welcome to defend your claim or acknowledge that it's incorrect. Then you are welcome to move onto something else. But you are *not* welcome to change the subject when your claims are refuted and ignore the fact that they were refuted.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 09:06:02 PM
#14
Quote
Tell me how I can print 100 billion XRPs.
Tell me how I can choose the Bitcoin genesis block, mining algorithm, or reward schedule. These systems are built under some entity's control and then that entity releases it into the wild such that it can never be imprisoned again.
The Bitcoin genesis block was intentionally unspendable - it is not added to the list of outputs, and Bitcoin clients will reject any transactions that tries so.

Please make your genesis XRPs unspendable, or stop comparing apples to oranges. Your ending sentence is irrelevant as I have never challenged that aspect.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 09:04:57 PM
#13
Quote
Whether a system is decentralized or not is a question of how its administrative functions work. By "administrative functions", I mean things that most people cannot do but that some entities have a special power to do. If it's "decentralized" then no single entity or small group of people can unilaterally seize administrative power. Bitcoin is decentralized in this way because it basically has no administrative functions other than changing the rules, and no single entity can change the rules. The community has to agree to change the rules for that to happen. Ripple was designed to be decentralized in this sense, but isn't quite yet because a single entity controls all the validators most people trust. We absolutely agree that we don't want things to stay that way. Once we get distributed validators, then it will be essentially impossible to provide any kind of administrative control without getting a large number of entities to agree.

Decentralization is not a boolean. When you have "11 out of 20 entities" must agree (or 1 out of 1 entities like now), is that really decentralized when you compare it to Bitcoin's "6601 out of 13200 entities" must agree?

For distributed validators, people must be able to choose their own validators. Do you agree? Will the Ripple web client provide an interface to choose validators?
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
September 26, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
#12
Are you seriously saying that when OpenCoin unilaterally changed account reserve requirements, which is akin to Federal Reserve tampering with interest rates?
OpenCoin holds a majority of validators right now. I'm sure Satoshi made any number of changes to Bitcoin before it was open source. We genuinely don't want this power because others legitimately perceive it as a risk, and changing this is one of our priorities now. We designed the system to be decentralized and are working to get it there.

Quote
Bitcoin will work if I have completely different nodes with someone else as long as we're on the same blockchain. It's not the same with Ripple.
So will Ripple. Nodes you connect to don't effect the data you see. You just need to be on the same ledger. I think our consensus scheme has a lot of advantages over Bitcoin's proof of work scheme, but one thing that is a disadvantage is that you need to maintain (or trust some other people to maintain on your behalf) lists of validators that you are willing to trust not to collude against you. We've been working on ways to make this as painless and secure as possible without compromising decentralization. It is a challenge.

Quote
Tell me how I can print 100 billion XRPs.
Tell me how I can choose the Bitcoin genesis block, mining algorithm, or reward schedule. These systems are built under some entity's control and then that entity releases it into the wild such that it can never be imprisoned again.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 08:54:13 PM
#11
Ripple isn't and can't be decentralized, it's distributed. For Ripple to work, the majority of the users must have somewhat similar validators in their UNLs.
They must be somewhat similar, that's true. But Bitcoin only works if everyone has the same blockchain and the same rules to decide what constitutes a valid block, but since nobody gets to unilaterally decide what the blockchain is or force a blockchain that violates the rules on others, it's still decentralized. It is absolutely true that for X to use the system to pay Y, X and Y must be on the same ledger. But no entity gets to decide what the ledger is and the ledger can only transition based on defined rules that nobody can unilaterally change.

Are you seriously saying that when OpenCoin unilaterally changed account reserve requirements, which is akin to Federal Reserve tampering with interest rates?

Quote
{
    "Account" : "rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhoLvTp",
    "Fee" : "0",
    "Sequence" : 0,
    "SigningPubKey" : "",
    "TransactionType" : "SetFee",
    "hash" : "C6A40F56127436DCD830B1B35FF939FD05B5747D30D6542572B7A835239817AF",
    "ledger_index" : 562177,
}

Decentralized Roll Eyes - OpenCoin unilaterally changed account reserve requirements.

Bitcoin will work if I have completely different nodes with someone else as long as we're on the same blockchain. It's not the same with Ripple.

Quote
Whether a system is decentralized or not is a question of how its administrative functions work. By "administrative functions", I mean things that most people cannot do but that some entities have a special power to do. If it's "decentralized" then no single entity or small group of people can unilaterally seize administrative power. Bitcoin is decentralized in this way because it basically has no administrative functions other than changing the rules, and no single entity can change the rules. The community has to agree to change the rules for that to happen. Ripple was designed to be decentralized in this sense, but isn't quite yet because a single entity controls all the validators most people trust. We absolutely agree that we don't want things to stay that way. Once we get distributed validators, then it will be essentially impossible to provide any kind of administrative control without getting a large number of entities to agree.

Tell me how I can print 100 billion XRPs.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
September 26, 2013, 08:52:01 PM
#10
Ripple isn't and can't be decentralized, it's distributed. For Ripple to work, the majority of the users must have somewhat similar validators in their UNLs.
They must be somewhat similar, that's true. But Bitcoin only works if everyone has the same blockchain and the same rules to decide what constitutes a valid block, but since nobody gets to unilaterally decide what the blockchain is or force a blockchain that violates the rules on others, it's still decentralized. It is absolutely true that for X to use the system to pay Y, X and Y must be on the same ledger. But no entity gets to decide what the ledger is and the ledger can only transition based on defined rules that nobody can unilaterally change.

Whether a system is decentralized or not is a question of how its administrative functions work. By "administrative functions", I mean things that most people cannot do but that some entities have a special power to do. If it's "decentralized" then no single entity or small group of people can unilaterally seize administrative power. Bitcoin is decentralized in this way because it basically has no administrative functions other than changing the rules, and no single entity can change the rules. The community has to agree to change the rules for that to happen. Ripple was designed to be decentralized in this sense, but isn't quite yet because a single entity controls all the validators most people trust. We absolutely agree that we don't want things to stay that way. Once we get distributed validators, then it will be essentially impossible to provide any kind of administrative control without getting a large number of entities to agree.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 08:51:08 PM
#9
validators in their UNLs?   In layman's terms?
Validators verify transactions are valid and resolve double spends. They're like miners in Bitcoin, however instead of mining being "I say X and here's my proof of work to back it up", it is "I say X and I'm OpenCoin".

UNLs stand for Unique Node List. Only nodes can have a UNL. They're the list of validators you trust to not defraud or conspire against you.

If you use ripple.com/client, you're not a node, you're just a light client.


Couldnt i just become a verifyer and and say I am opencoin? and if enough people did that wouldn't it become decentralized?

Wouldnt it go from people saying I am opencoin to we are opencoin?

You can run your own validator, but do you have the private key corresponding to ripple.com/validators.txt?

If your validator doesn't include OpenCoin nodes in it's UNL, you will end up with a fork / different ledger.

If your validator does include OpenCoin nodes in it's UNL, you're simply an extension of OpenCoin's nodes.

In either case, good luck getting people to add your node when the default validators are opencoin and 99+% of Ripple users use ripple.com/client and is unable to choose their own validators.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
September 26, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
#8
validators in their UNLs?   In layman's terms?
Validators verify transactions are valid and resolve double spends. They're like miners in Bitcoin, however instead of mining being "I say X and here's my proof of work to back it up", it is "I say X and I'm OpenCoin".

UNLs stand for Unique Node List. Only nodes can have a UNL. They're the list of validators you trust to not defraud or conspire against you.

If you use ripple.com/client, you're not a node, you're just a light client.


Couldnt i just become a verifyer and and say I am opencoin? and if enough people did that wouldn't it become decentralized?

Wouldnt it go from people saying I am opencoin to we are opencoin?
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 08:32:41 PM
#7
validators in their UNLs?   In layman's terms?
Validators verify transactions are valid and resolve double spends. They're like miners in Bitcoin, however instead of mining being "I say X and here's my proof of work to back it up, send my coinbase (block reward) to [address]", it is "I say X and I'm OpenCoin, and I already mined all the XRPs.".

UNLs stand for Unique Node List. Only nodes can have a UNL. They're the list of validators you trust to not defraud or conspire against you.

If you use ripple.com/client, you're not a node, you're just a light client.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
September 26, 2013, 08:29:08 PM
#6
 validators in their UNLs?   In layman's terms?
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
September 26, 2013, 08:13:43 PM
#5
We had to design the system so that people could trust it even after it was decentralized. We have no secrets. The source code is available. If we got anything wrong, we'll do our best to fix it.


Ripple isn't and can't be decentralized, it's distributed. For Ripple to work, the majority of the users must have somewhat similar validators in their UNLs.

https://ripple.com/validators.txt

Quote
n9KPnVLn7ewVzHvn218DcEYsnWLzKerTDwhpofhk4Ym1RUq4TeGw    RIP1
n9LFzWuhKNvXStHAuemfRKFVECLApowncMAM5chSCL9R5ECHGN4V    RIP2
n94rSdgTyBNGvYg8pZXGuNt59Y5bGAZGxbxyvjDaqD9ceRAgD85P    RIP3
n9LeQeDcLDMZKjx1TZtrXoLBLo5q1bR1sUQrWG7tEADFU6R27UBp    RIP4
n9KF6RpvktjNs2MDBkmxpJbup4BKrKeMKDXPhaXkq7cKTwLmWkFr    RIP5

You can't get rid of OpenCoin and have a functioning Ripple, even the wiki admits that:

Quote
If everyone chooses a completely disparate sets of validators the network will be unlikely to reach consensus that a particular version of the ledger is the one true and accurate ledger.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
September 26, 2013, 07:36:45 PM
#4
Do ripple developers have any plans of offering insured transactions? That is what will make this work.
No, but there are other people who have that idea. Watch for announcements.

Quote
Is that you or Jerry Garcia? Grin
Haha.

Quote
Sorry I still have not figured out how to quote properly
It's pretty easy, you just put "quote" before the quote (in square brackets) and "/quote" after it, also in square brackets.

Quote
"That won't do anything. The software is out there. Right now, we do run all the validators that people use, but if we disappeared, others would do so. One of our top priorities now is to distribute the set of validators and set up an infrastructure to make that self-regulating and decentralized."

How will people get paid for doing that work?
That would be up to the community to decide. It's certainly possible that without us to back it, Ripple would wither and die. That's probably true right now. But that also will change over time as more and more people have a vested interest in seeing Ripple succeed because it solves problems for them. If Ripple doesn't solve real world problems that real people have, it doesn't much matter if it goes away. If it does, then those people will have an incentive to sustain it.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
September 26, 2013, 07:02:38 PM
#3
Do ripple developers have any plans of offering insured transactions? That is what will make this work.  


Is that you or Jerry Garcia? Grin  

Sorry I still have not figured out how to quote properly

"That won't do anything. The software is out there. Right now, we do run all the validators that people use, but if we disappeared, others would do so. One of our top priorities now is to distribute the set of validators and set up an infrastructure to make that self-regulating and decentralized."

How will people get paid for doing that work?
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
September 26, 2013, 06:50:28 PM
#2
*First how can a centralized institution ever be secure? We have seen the problems that bitcoin has encountered and watched bitinstant, liberty reserve and Mt Gox all cave under the regulatory pressures from the US government. What would make ripple any different? It is all in one spot if they wanted to shut you down it wouldnt be much of a problem they just show up at your office and pull the plug.
That won't do anything. The software is out there. Right now, we do run all the validators that people use, but if we disappeared, others would do so. One of our top priorities now is to distribute the set of validators and set up an infrastructure to make that self-regulating and decentralized.

Quote
*How can we trust Ripple? You own the servers and issue the currency. How could we ever know that there is not a backdoor that would allow the dev. to create currency at will?
Every ledger is signed by every validator every few seconds. Every ledger includes a tree that justifies any changes in the main portion of the ledger. If someone's XRP balance increases, there must be a metadata entry justifying that change, or everyone in the world has proof Ripple has, through bug, subterfuge, or glitch, violated the rules.

Every ledger has two halves, a state half and a change half. Any changes to the state half (other than trivial changes to indexing and so on) must be justified by a signed transaction in the change half. If not, everyone will have proof that Ripple violated its invariants somehow. Any change that "disadvantages" someone must be justified by a transaction they signed. Any increase in XRP must be justified by a matching decrease (there is no way to create additional XRP beyond what exists in the genesis ledger). And so on.

We had to design the system so that people could trust it even after it was decentralized. We have no secrets. The source code is available. If we got anything wrong, we'll do our best to fix it.

Quote
*Why cant you import trust? One of the most aggravating things for me when i decided to join the bitcoin community is that no one would look at outside factors in gauging my trustworthiness. The ass hats in OTC gave me an insanely hard time and wouldnt accept any information that I provided to support my reputation. The best indication of future behavior is past behavior. If you want to build a trust network then people should be able to import trust from other sites. I trust someone who has 5000 online ebay sales with 100 percent positive feedback. Why couldnt you import that trust and let people choose to accept or deny it?
Speaking for myself personally, I think community/personal credit may be Ripple's killer app over the long term. But we don't quite understand how to manage it yet. Hopefully the community will help us figure out the best way to do this.

Quote
*Why dont you offer ID verification? Someones willingness to Id goes a long way in establishing their credibility. Anonymity and trustworthiness do not go together
That is definitely planned. We're working on a decentralized ID verification scheme.

Quote
*Isnt the only real benefit to ripple over the trust system here on bitcoin talk is that it allows you to borrow from people who trust people that you trust?
No. Ripple has many other benefits, such as direct access to market makers for cross-currency payments and the ability to shift balances without having to go to or through the issuer.

Quote
*You have said that the problem with ripple at the moment is the same problem BTC has in that it is very difficult to get fiat in and out of the system, Why? If it is a system based on trust why wouldnt you let people import any kinds of funds they like. Why not let people import debit card, credit card and PP funds? Label the type of funds and let people choose if they are willing to transact for them?
We'd love for people to do those things! Anyone can introduce arbitrary assets onto the Ripple network and everybody gets to choose which assets they consider valuable. That's what it's for.

Quote
*Who owns it and what are their motives? What is the mission statement?
I'm not sure what you're asking. If you mean the Ripple protocol, nobody. If you mean the Ripple network, all the participants own their respective devices. We have no desire to control or own the protocol or the network.

Quote
*Dont you think that instead of using ripple if you let each user have their own currency the system would work much better? For instance I would have Chris North coins and You would have a Joel Katz coins and based on your assets and credibility the valuation would change? That way instead of blindly trusting people that the people I trust trust, instead there would transparency. The way that is set up now doesnt take into account that some people are a better judge of credibility than others. I dont want to trust people just because you do you might not be any good at assessing trustworthiness.
That's what Ripple does. Anyone can issue an asset. Anyone can agree to accept any asset they want. The whole point of Ripple is to make payments work *without* any transitive trust.

Let's say you have a bank and I have a bank. You trust your bank to hold you money. I trust my bank to hold my money. If I want to pay you $50, I write you a check for $50. You don't trust me or my bank, but because that check allows your bank to owe you $50 more, you consider me to have paid you $50. You don't trust anyone but your bank. I don't trust anyone but mine. In the middle, either people who trust both banks, someone who is willing to trade dollars for XRP, or some other path makes the payment work. That's Ripple's big idea.

Quote
*My goal with digital currency is to defund the governments of the world, I have lost faith in the idea of bitcoin because i dont see any real advantages that it offers that will appeal to the masses. I realize it has some benefits but the average person is not gonna go out and start using coins. They dont know or care about the monetary system. The reasons to use bitcoin is not important to the average person. For it to gain widespread adoption it has to be better than what is already in place and it simply isn't and I dont really see how it can be. How can ripple change that?
One big advantage is that it gives people currency choice. If Ripple takes over the world, you can get paid in local currency and receive dollars. When you buy groceries, you can spend dollars and the grocer receives local currency. That means you don't hold local currency, so your government can't inflate it our from under you. Don't like dollars? Hold gold. Like Bitcoins? Hold them.

Quote
*If someone is my trust network establishes a lot of trust then borrows from everyone in the network and cuts and runs can I lose out?
No, you can only lose out if someone you choose to trust defaults on you for an amount equal to or less than the amount you trusted them to hold on your behalf. Payment paths only exist instantaneously while a payment is made. After that, there are only balances on trust lines that people have specifically chosen to create.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
September 26, 2013, 02:46:34 PM
#1
Disclaimer *I have never used ripple and have found it to be confusing, I dont know the details of how the system works.*


Joel I have a few questions for you and the development team. I know that you know I have been somewhat hostile toward ripple and to be honest you personally, but i want to clear the air and talk about this project and discuses how it is implemented, its attributes and shortcomings. I do admire the project if for no other fact than that you boys realize that money is and has always been an IOU. Many PhD's of economics don't understand the credit theory of money and even more financial advisers, so kudos to you on that. Money is and has always been a promise. I dont know if you are aware that I have been selling coins for the last year for reversible methods? I think of it as buying and selling trust, I believe that the only way for bitcoin to work is through a trust network. Which is very much in line with what i understand of the Ripple network. So here are a few questions that I have, and please anyone that has input feel free to interject.

*First how can a centralized institution ever be secure? We have seen the problems that bitcoin has encountered and watched bitinstant, liberty reserve and Mt Gox all cave under the regulatory pressures from the US government. What would make ripple any different? It is all in one spot if they wanted to shut you down it wouldnt be much of a problem they just show up at your office and pull the plug.

*How can we trust Ripple? You own the servers and issue the currency. How could we ever know that there is not a backdoor that would allow the dev. to create currency at will?

*Why cant you import trust? One of the most aggravating things for me when i decided to join the bitcoin community is that no one would look at outside factors in gauging my trustworthiness. The ass hats in OTC gave me an insanely hard time and wouldnt accept any information that I provided to support my reputation. The best indication of future behavior is past behavior. If you want to build a trust network then people should be able to import trust from other sites. I trust someone who has 5000 online ebay sales with 100 percent positive feedback. Why couldnt you import that trust and let people choose to accept or deny it?

*Why dont you offer ID verification? Someones willingness to Id goes a long way in establishing their credibility. Anonymity and trustworthiness do not go together

*Isnt the only real benefit to ripple over the trust system here on bitcoin talk is that it allows you to borrow from people who trust people that you trust?

*You have said that the problem with ripple at the moment is the same problem BTC has in that it is very difficult to get fiat in and out of the system, Why? If it is a system based on trust why wouldnt you let people import any kinds of funds they like. Why not let people import debit card, credit card and PP funds? Label the type of funds and let people choose if they are willing to transact for them?

*Who owns it and what are their motives? What is the mission statement?

*Dont you think that instead of using ripple if you let each user have their own currency the system would work much better? For instance I would have Chris North coins and You would have a Joel Katz coins and based on your assets and credibility the valuation would change? That way instead of blindly trusting people that the people I trust trust, instead there would transparency. The way that is set up now doesnt take into account that some people are a better judge of credibility than others. I dont want to trust people just because you do you might not be any good at assessing trustworthiness.


*My goal with digital currency is to defund the governments of the world, I have lost faith in the idea of bitcoin because i dont see any real advantages that it offers that will appeal to the masses. I realize it has some benefits but the average person is not gonna go out and start using coins. They dont know or care about the monetary system. The reasons to use bitcoin is not important to the average person. For it to gain widespread adoption it has to be better than what is already in place and it simply isn't and I dont really see how it can be. How can ripple change that?

*If someone is my trust network establishes a lot of trust then borrows from everyone in the network and cuts and runs can I lose out?

I have more questions and suggestions but I think this is a good start.    
    



    
Pages:
Jump to: