Topic: Ripple XRP surge open source and ZipZap news! - page 12. (Read 28058 times)

ACH sucks....takes 2 or 3 days for your money to move and usually a fee for it (either you pay it or the bank/service does and passes it along to you somehow).

And wire transfer costs what?  $30?   Sending bitcoin costs about 5 cents with the miner feel and sending with ripple costs even less.

And I have been using BTC with XRP for months and never really pondered which is "better".  They are both very good at what they do and I will continue to use both for quite some time, I'm sure.

http://ripplefederation.org/news/looks-like-we-might-be-getting-some-big-news-from-zipzap?xg_source=twitter

ACH and wire transfers do not work "beautifully", they work like a system designed in the 1900s to function over a telegraph during business hours. With ripple, exchanging IOUs becomes as seamless as sending bitcoins.

ACH and SWIFT are bureaucracies, Ripple is a protocol. Its like comparing snail-mail to e-mail.

Ripplescam.org shoudl be called Idontparticularlycareforripple.org but I guess that wouldn't be as sensational and attention getting.  It is not a "scam" by any means, even if it doesn't work for you.

Anyway XRP is staying strong...not pulling back much at all from highs of the day.  It is still at about .0110. Volume isn't that high but still a lot of buys at the bid.  

This should really run up into early October.  Now that I know about the ZipZap official announcement on Oct 6, I'm holding and adding on the way back up to .02 and possibly beyond...

By that, you mean regular ripple users become liquidity providers and will end up holding worthless IOUs. You'd have to run rippled if you don't want to be a liquidity provider. Liquidity providers takes on a significant risk of losing money without any reward.

Speculating on the prices of XRP is much more important than not making your users carry on significant risks. There's real world examples of people that have lost money. But if ripple users were not liquidity providers by default (charging 0% fee while taking on non-zero risk), Ripple's payment system won't be functional.

This is just one of the many flaws of ripple, and if you do your own research you'll get the real picture of what Ripple and OpenCoin Inc is. I'll elaborate upon these points in a rewrite of RippleScam.org soon.

What license will the Ripple server be licensed in?

Thanks for taking the time for the detailed explanation.  I have been into XRP for a few months and still don't totally understand the inner workings of the IOU system but that makes it a little clearer.

I just know that I use Bitstamp and Snapswap as my gateways and both work fine most of the time.  I wish there were more gateways though and hoping at October Money2020 conference that some more are announced.  It sounds like there's a good chance they will be.

Gateways generally don't accept anything but currencies from that very gateway. The point of a gateway is to issue an asset on the Ripple network. They give this asset value by redeeming it on demand. They don't have to do anything with any assets issued by anyone else.

If a gateway makes it difficult to redeem, then that gateway's IOUs will be valued at less than face value. Nobody going to give a gateway $5 in cold, hard cash to get back an IOU worth less than $5. So a gateway that makes redemption difficult will be slitting its own throat.

Correct, and that's essentially always where it is. A gateway issues an asset for $5. That asset bounces around between those who wish to hold it. Eventually, it's redeemed with the gateway, and the redeemer gets back cash. That's all the gateway does. Any inter-gateway or cross-currency transactions are done by the gateway's customers, not the gateway. (Unless, for some independent reason, the gateway opts to also operate an exchange, market-making, or similar service.)

Gateways, generally speaking, don't provide each other liquidity. Market makers do that. A gateway that needed to might provide some "backstop liquidity" to ensure the assets it issues are liquid, but it's not likely to handle assets issued by other gateways as part of its ordinary course of business, unless it had some specific reason to. Why add unnecessary risk?

If I hold one Bitcoin issued by Foo and want to buy something for USD issued by Bar, I essentially trade by Bitcoin/Foo for USD/Bar to make the payment atomically. Other people (traders, market-makers) wind up holding my Bitcoin/Foo. I can use multiple paths to make this payment. Perhaps some of the USD/Bar will be traded directly on the Bitcoin/Foo-USD/Bar exchange. Perhaps some of the Bitcoin/Foo will be sold for XRP and the XRP used to buy USD/Bar on the XRP-USD/Bar exchange. Ripple contains a pathfinding/matchmaking system to generate these atomic payments.

From the standpoint of the gateway, they just see redeem and issue transactions for their own assets. Their "redeem on demand" agreements give the assets they issue value. They need play no direct role in cross-currency or cross-issuer transactions.

Wow this one got by me. I think I'm buying more now and holding through next month, most likely.

You may want to start another thread to talk about the long-term value of the ripple protocol.

But if you are asking why should you be enthusiastic about 90% return in 4 days, then I really can't answer that if you don't already get it.

All you're saying is that the Gateways do not accept anything but currencies from trusted Gateways. Fine, but you have the same problem, just less obvious.

You have an intrinsic inescapable Moral Hazard built into the system whereby Gateways are incentivized to over-borrow (issue IOU's), and then make it difficult to redeem.

And I hope you noticed that you have to keep restricting the trust in the system and remove the concept of liquidity provider entirely in order to get it to work. What you described above is a far cry from the original vision of Ripple.

And the idea of liquidity provider returns with a vengeance...
Yes you do receive something that can be only redeemed at the other bank.

Somewhere along the line the USD.A needs to end up at BANK.A in order to be redeemed. Otherwise; Open palm, insert face.

Say there's Bank A, B, and C and they issue the IOU's USD.A, USD.B, USD.C respectively. They are all liquidity providers for the others.

If USD.B or USD.C ends up at Bank A, then Bank A might redeem the dollars, but the bank has to turn around with those IOU's and redeem them at the other banks. There's no way around this. You can't just convert USD.B or USD.C to USD.A because that would reduce debt of the other banks and decrease the reserves of Bank A, exposing it to the risk of insolvency for no gain. (Ignoring that each unit of USD.A, USD.B, and USD.C has a different value in the market.)

That holds true for XBT, EUR, RUB, or any other currency.

You're correct in saying that markets calculate the value of IOU's among banks already. It works beautifully, so what's the point of ripple again?


In summary; If you get rid of the liquidity provider and allow IOU's of the same principal to have different values, then yes you can have a working trust-based media of exchange. What's the big deal?

We already have ways of managing trust among businesses. We can already exchange currencies with trusted businesses. Why should we be so enthusiastic about this?

Yes that's what I thought when it hit .01..did pull back a little, but now up 15% from there.  I don't totally disagree with you though and I'm buying on dips for at least the next week.

Indeed, but looking at depth, we may see a bit of a correction first.

You are not able to force IOUs upon anyone that they don't want - if you manage to trade a mattress IOU for RUB directly, this person has to have trusted the mattress IOU issuer explicitly.

What is more likely is that you trade mattress --> USD.Bitstamp --> RUB.RussianGateway which involves two atomic trades, where someone gets the mattress IOU they are willing to accept for USD.Bitstamp via an open market order and someone else gets these USD.Bitstamp and give you RUB.RussianGateway, as well through an explicit market order. There is no way the second person will end up with a mattress unless he/she explicitly want them.

Ripple works similar to your bank account: Whoever sends you money (e.g. I send you 10 EUR from Deutsche Bank) - it will be converted in the end via one or more intermediates to a balance of USD IOUs of your own bank. Yes, there might be special cases, I know, but the basic principle is that if someone sends you money from a different bank, you don't receive something that can be only redeemed at that other bank - you receive a balance with your own bank (gateway). Ripple just makes these conversions explicit and public, instead of implicit and hidden away (you cannot choose on a free market who exchanges my EUR.DeutscheBank to your USD.BankOfAmerika for example).

As there will be, as you correctly said, always be uncertainty on how much you can trust a gateway, there will also be always fees in between from people who are willing to take that risk. Take BTC.TradeFortress for example - if you believe there is a 1% chance that TF would actually send you the amount of BTC on the block chain that he received on Ripple when redeeming the IOUs, as soon as you buy more than 100 BTC.TradeFortress with a quite surely redeemable BTC.Bitstamp, you might actually have made a profit. There might be other people with different valuations etc. but the basic principle is still that of an open and free market for price (and through price: risk) discovery. Just like what's currently happening still with USD.MtGox vs. USD.Bitstamp.
You are just criticising that prices and conversion rates between IOUs can and will never be 100% certain - this however is in my opinion a basic premise of any IOU and to some extend even something that applies to real goods and assets. It is like saying stock markets are bound to fail as there is no way to determine the real value of shares.

Now up almost 100% from when the thread was started less than 4 days ago. Congrats to those who jumped in early but XRP went up 2000% in April/May so it could still have much farther to run. 

It can still double from here and be below it's high in June.

Yes good point, and I often sell too early.

As they say in the stock market, "cut your losers quick and let your winners run".

So no reason to sell XRP until it has signs of pulling back, which sure isn't yet.  It's up .0114 now and still going...Just bought more.

I'd be more concerned about its "Pompeii" moment.

I guess on a normal trend reversal here or even .02 would be a decent place to take some profit but then I think...how many times will Ripple open source?  What if the ZipZap integration rumor is true?  What other news is waiting to be unveiled at the Money2020 event?  Google wallet integration?  Who knows what's to come.  All I do know is that profits at .02 are good...but profits at .1 or .2+ are even better.     Hate to sell early only to miss XRP's "260/Cyprus" moment.

Well you were probably saying that two days ago when it was up 60%.  It is up 83% now and climbing.  I would say take some profits when it gets back up to .02 which is still double where we are now.

Most importantly, it is through the .01 barrier where it paused for awhile yesterday.  So now clear sailing up to .015 or so.

So is it time for everyone who already owned some XRP to dump them?

-MarkM-

While you guys debate the merits of the Ripple protocol, XRP is now up 83% from when I started this thread less than four days ago.