Pages:
Author

Topic: Ripple: Use FRC instead of XRP? (Read 1889 times)

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
February 27, 2013, 12:52:09 PM
#33
 
Quote
This is false, as modern fiat currencies have no intrinsic value and their real value is derived from their ability to be exchanged for goods (purchasing power) and used for payment of taxes.

Since when is BTC a fiat currency?


There's no such thing as intrinsic value, you don't have to read Gesell to know that. The founder of the austrian school was already aware of this.

All monies (symbols of value that serve as medium of exchange) get their value from their ability to be exchanged for real products.

Do you think gold would be at its current price if it wasn't money? If it only relied in its industrial value?
Then, please, explain me its price in relation to silver.
Both have similar industrial uses (maybe even silver has more) and gold has an enormously bigger supply...
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
February 27, 2013, 12:06:33 PM
#32
I really don't see how the BTC is going to be a reliable currency in terms of using it to buy anything given how volatile it is and will likely trend upwards and then correct before heading upwards again.

You're under the influence of the money illusion.


Illusion. I am on this planet for 90 years if I am lucky buddy. It is all an illusion. That $300,000 pizza sure is an illusion.

  
Quote
This is false, as modern fiat currencies have no intrinsic value and their real value is derived from their ability to be exchanged for goods (purchasing power) and used for payment of taxes.

Since when is BTC a fiat currency?
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
February 27, 2013, 06:24:51 AM
#31
The problem with the idea is that people use BTC to save/hold cash and FRC to do transactions is that if all my savings are in BTC why on earth would I want to convert to FRC before spending them?

We're assuming merchants will accept both and spend FRC first (without converting them). That could result in more value being transferred through frc than through btc. We don't care how much value is being stored in btc compared to frc because frc is not designed to be a store of value: only a medium of excange.
I don't think either btc or frc will ever be good as medium of account (not that it is really necessary for anything), but freicoin will probably be better for that too.

And of course, investors will prefer to borrow frc over borrowing btc as they will be able to find better rates as frc has demurrage and it's not deflationary.
That's the whole point, that investment doesn't stops in "deflationary times" if we can really have that with a free monetary market (historically those monetary cycles occurred under a gold [monopoly] standard).

Think about what you're saying. If Ripple transactions required Bitcoin, then you'd have to wait for at least one confirmation from the Bitcoin network before you could consider a Ripple transaction complete. Furthermore, if the chain containing the Bitcoin part of the Ripple transaction got orphaned, the Ripple transaction would be rolled back. This is completely incompatible with Ripple's ledger system.

This is what happens when people with no technical ability try to pontificate.


The point of XRP is spam prevention. Even if the chain gets orphaned the task at hand, spam prevention, is still accomplished. And of course the actual data would not be contained in the bitcoin blockchain, just some hash or some similar system. Its really not that hard to think of a way this could work. IIRC the clients still store orphaned chains in the blk0001.dat anyways.

I think it's feasible but technically very complex. Besides you lose ledger consensus's improved latency and you become liable to PoW security model in addition of ledger's consensus security model.
I prefer to have two different security models operating in parallel: that makes the crypto-assets community as a whole much more resilient.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
February 26, 2013, 11:48:55 PM
#30
As was discussed in several of the other Ripple threads, none of those approaches actually work. But even if they did, they would still be inferior solutions because they wouldn't allow Opencoin to make Ripple free to as many people as possible for as long as possible which would drastically decrease the chances Ripple would ever be a viable payment platform.


Hmmm, well you could also offer another cryptocurrency which is also making itself free to as many people as possible for as long as possible as fairly as possible. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
February 26, 2013, 11:45:43 PM
#29
There are ways you can insert data into the block chain, or colored coins, or what p2pool does. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but I know its been done before. I'm sure if OpenCoin wanted to they could figure it out.
As was discussed in several of the other Ripple threads, none of those approaches actually work. But even if they did, they would still be inferior solutions because they wouldn't allow anyone to give away enough to allow a large number of people to perform millions of transactions. That would drastically decrease the chances Ripple would ever be a viable payment platform.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
February 26, 2013, 11:42:00 PM
#28
Think about what you're saying. If Ripple transactions required Bitcoin, then you'd have to wait for at least one confirmation from the Bitcoin network before you could consider a Ripple transaction complete. Furthermore, if the chain containing the Bitcoin part of the Ripple transaction got orphaned, the Ripple transaction would be rolled back. This is completely incompatible with Ripple's ledger system.

This is what happens when people with no technical ability try to pontificate.


The point of XRP is spam prevention. Even if the chain gets orphaned the task at hand, spam prevention, is still accomplished. And of course the actual data would not be contained in the bitcoin blockchain, just some hash or some similar system. Its really not that hard to think of a way this could work. IIRC the clients still store orphaned chains in the blk0001.dat anyways.
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
February 26, 2013, 11:38:52 PM
#27
I'm sure if OpenCoin wanted to they could figure it out.

Think about what you're saying. If Ripple transactions required Bitcoin, then you'd have to wait for at least one confirmation from the Bitcoin network before you could consider a Ripple transaction complete. Furthermore, if the chain containing the Bitcoin part of the Ripple transaction got orphaned, the Ripple transaction would be rolled back. This is completely incompatible with Ripple's ledger system.

This is what happens when people with no technical ability try to pontificate.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
February 26, 2013, 11:22:18 PM
#26

How could you use Bitcoin for it? You can't use BTC IOU's, because there's no entity which could serve as an issuer. And bitcoins are in the blockchain, not the Ripple ledger... you might as well suggest paying the transaction fees in gold. If you think it can be done, I'm genuinely curious what you have in mind.

There are ways you can insert data into the block chain, or colored coins, or what p2pool does. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but I know its been done before. I'm sure if OpenCoin wanted to they could figure it out.
member
Activity: 79
Merit: 10
February 26, 2013, 11:04:15 PM
#25
Why doesn't Ripple use Freicoin instead of XRP?

Because Freicoin is not an integral part of the Ripple protocol. Whatever currency they use to discourage spam (assuming that such a solution is the only possible way), has to be built into the Ripple protocol. One could just as easily ask, why they didn't use Bitcoin.


I don't really see why it needs to be a new currency. I'm sure they could have come up with a way to use bitcoin for this if they wanted to. Anyways, I just thought I would suggest it in case OpenCoin were listening.

How could you use Bitcoin for it? You can't use BTC IOU's, because there's no entity which could serve as an issuer. And bitcoins are in the blockchain, not the Ripple ledger... you might as well suggest paying the transaction fees in gold. If you think it can be done, I'm genuinely curious what you have in mind.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
February 26, 2013, 10:42:37 PM
#24
Why doesn't Ripple use Freicoin instead of XRP?

Because Freicoin is not an integral part of the Ripple protocol. Whatever currency they use to discourage spam (assuming that such a solution is the only possible way), has to be built into the Ripple protocol. One could just as easily ask, why they didn't use Bitcoin.


I don't really see why it needs to be a new currency. I'm sure they could have come up with a way to use bitcoin for this if they wanted to. Anyways, I just thought I would suggest it in case OpenCoin were listening.
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
February 26, 2013, 08:24:40 PM
#23
Why doesn't Ripple use Freicoin instead of XRP?

Because Freicoin is not an integral part of the Ripple protocol. Whatever currency they use to discourage spam (assuming that such a solution is the only possible way), has to be built into the Ripple protocol. One could just as easily ask, why they didn't use Bitcoin.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
February 26, 2013, 07:26:51 PM
#22
Why doesn't Ripple use Freicoin instead of XRP?

There's really no reason for Ripple to make its own cryptocurrency for spam protection. After all, the Ripple protocol is a service other currencies can be loaned through. So, why not use an already existing cryptocurrency instead and focus their efforts on making web services, which the OpenCoin team looks well positioned to do?

Bitcoin is an obvious option, but its economic definition is for goldbugs who are outside of Ripple's best markets.

I think Freicoin would be an ideal choice for paying for Ripple transactions, due to the demurrage. Demurrage currency is much better at representing debts in terms normal people understand. The average person doesn't really think about time-value of money. They just know they need money and seek it from lenders. Often times they involve themselves in disadvantaged transactions because time-value of money is complicated.

Freicoin makes the time-value of money easy to understand by hiding the time value of money with demurrage. This way people can know they are getting a good deal if they borrow 100$ and have to pay back 100$ to the loan company. The combination of Ripple loans and Freicoin are a great match. Why not do this instead?
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
February 26, 2013, 02:35:27 PM
#21
Shorting Freicoin. Smiley

-MarkM-
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
February 26, 2013, 01:46:26 PM
#20
Would you rather spend 1 BTC today or 3500 FRC for a game?
Which do you think will hold or gain in "value" in the next 2 years?

There's no difference - if we assume 1 BTC has same value now as 3500 FRC.

If I only have 1 BTC and 0 freicoin then I'd spend the BTC.  I would NOT convert the BTC to FRC then spend the FRC.
If I had 0 BTC and 3500 FRC then I'd spend the FRC.

If I had 1 BTC and 3500 FRC then I'd spend the FRC - but if I wasn't going to buy the game I'd convert the FRC to BTC, making the end result identical to if I'd had 2 BTC and 0 FRC in the first place.

The problem with the idea is that people use BTC to save/hold cash and FRC to do transactions is that if all my savings are in BTC why on earth would I want to convert to FRC before spending them?  Unless FRC becomes more widely accepted by merchants than BTC there's zero reason for anyone holding BTC to pay via FRC and incur a second set of exchange fees.  Only other reason to use it would be if it grew in value faster than BTC - i.e. the entire concept behind it totally failed.

If BTC appreciates in value faster than FRC then there's no way I want to EVER hold FRC rather than BTC unless it's for some purpose that I can't achieve with BTC.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
February 26, 2013, 01:43:14 PM
#19
I really don't see how the BTC is going to be a reliable currency in terms of using it to buy anything given how volatile it is and will likely trend upwards and then correct before heading upwards again.

You're under the influence of the money illusion.


No he is arguing the rate of change between nominal value and purchasing power .... that is not money illusion....  I don't believe from what he stated that he was expecting 1 BTC to buy an egg today and in 100 years should still buy an egg.... he seemed to be arguing that its bad when 1 BTC buys an egg today, in a couple months it buys 4 eggs and then a month after that it only buys half an egg...
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
February 26, 2013, 01:30:29 PM
#18
Then please explain why I would want to use Freicoin instead of Bitcoin. If there is a value store currency, you don't need a currency that continuously loses in value.

While I believe there are issues with freicoin, it is not that it "continuously loses in value"....  It actually pretty innovatively fixes one of the big problems with bitcoin in the form of lost/destroyed coins, in doing so, freicoin maintains a static coinbase whereas bitcoins will be continuously shrinking from it's max.  Thus both coins will be deflationary but bitcoin may be "too" deflationary in time.  Freicoin will be deflationary because it has a static base amount of coins and the user count adoption rate can increase in time, but conversly the effect of lost/destroyed coins is mostly mitigated, so deflation in time will be slower (?slow enough?)
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
February 26, 2013, 01:08:11 PM
#17
I really don't see how the BTC is going to be a reliable currency in terms of using it to buy anything given how volatile it is and will likely trend upwards and then correct before heading upwards again.

You're under the influence of the money illusion.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
February 26, 2013, 09:32:39 AM
#16
Sure you send me .3 btc... deal.

Ignore the point at your peril or go buy $300,000 pizzas.

I really don't see how the BTC is going to be a reliable currency in terms of using it to buy anything given how volatile it is and will likely trend upwards and then correct before heading upwards again.

Would FRC have this issue? Given that it is built for the specific purpose to be used not held I think there are advantages to adopting it over BTC for day to day purchases. Also currencies like Freicoin have been tested and adopted in the "real" world and performed as expected.

What is the problem?


sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
February 26, 2013, 09:27:34 AM
#15
Would you rather spend 1 BTC today or 3500 FRC for a game?

Well, if thats the current rate send me 0.3 btc and i send you 930 frc Smiley
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
February 26, 2013, 09:13:03 AM
#14
Would you rather spend 1 BTC today or 3500 FRC for a game?
Which do you think will hold or gain in "value" in the next 2 years?
Which would be a better as currency for everyday trade as opposed to holding as an investment?
How does FRC lose value please explain, you did read above I hope?


Quote
http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/bitcoin-prices-bitcoin-inflexibility/


Now let’s remodel : what happens when a 300% increase on the supply side meets a 5% increase in the demand side ? There’s pretty much literally nothing those extra dollars nobody wants can do to increase the Bitcoin supply. It’s very, very inelastic, and consequently the only stability point is when equilibrium is reached. Two billion dollars divided by 600`000 Bitcoins comes to three thousand dollars and change per Bitcoin.
Pages:
Jump to: