Rock on TradeFortress. The "automatic liquidity providing" feature is broken and I expect they'll eventually figure it out and turn it off.
The question I have yet to get a straight answer from anyone is, what happens to Ripple when everyone turns off automatic liquidity providing? does it still 'work'?
Topic: Theymos: What the fuck is up with BFL and TradeFortress? - page 7. (Read 14360 times)
OK, let us take two scenarios:
You trust Instawallet for up to 100 BTC. You have 10 BTC in Instawallet. Instawallet closes, bye 10 BTC.
You trust Instawallet for up to 100 BTC with Ripple. You have 10 BTC in Instawallet. Instawallet closes overnight, you become a liquidity provider for Instawallet and take on 90 BTC more debt. Bye 100 BTC.
It is impossible with Bitcoin to lose more bitcoins than you put in. In this case, it would have being zero (I handed out free BTCs). With Ripple, you will lose as much bitcoins as you trust, even if you put in nothing.
You trust Instawallet for up to 100 BTC. You have 10 BTC in Instawallet. Instawallet closes, bye 10 BTC.
You trust Instawallet for up to 100 BTC with Ripple. You have 10 BTC in Instawallet. Instawallet closes overnight, you become a liquidity provider for Instawallet and take on 90 BTC more debt. Bye 100 BTC.
It is impossible with Bitcoin to lose more bitcoins than you put in. In this case, it would have being zero (I handed out free BTCs). With Ripple, you will lose as much bitcoins as you trust, even if you put in nothing.
They are different because Bitcoin does not allow, say, Instawallet to replace 100 BTC in bitcoin-qt with 100 "BTC" in Instawallet without your explicit approval. Nobody would have lost anything if users had to click "I will trade 10 BTC.Bitstamp for 10 BTC.TradeFortress.
Bitcoin allows instawallet to do whatever they want without anyone's approval. Both "attacks" take advantage of the fact that you can trick people into doing things that have negative consequences that they might not be aware of.Both attacks involve tricking someone into doing something that can have negative consequences of which they may not be aware and then exploiting the results of that trick. Even if it required explicit approval, you could just as easily trick people into providing that approval. By requiring it of them before making a payment to them.
http://www.hrmorning.com/would-you-trade-your-password-for-a-candy-bar/
They are different because Bitcoin does not allow, say, Instawallet to replace 100 BTC in bitcoin-qt with 100 "BTC" in Instawallet without your explicit approval. Nobody would have lost anything if users had to click "I will trade 10 BTC.Bitstamp for 10 BTC.TradeFortress.
So you are saying because it is comparable that it is okay to mislead newbies to use ripple when bitcoin has people that scam via your described methods or users being "too stupid" to use powerful tools?
No.Quote
Now you can go back and address my points above whether you like how I worded it or not.
No. I'm not going to switch from argument to argument while you refuse to either defend or abandon the arguments I've rebutted. Please don't restate my argument but actually address the argument I made.Here it is again:
Quote
It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.
Do you agree or disagree that these are comparable? If you think they are different, in what relevant way are they different? 
Two people reply to me but neither actually addresses the argument I was making at all. You're welcome to make 800 different arguments, but it gets really tedious when you keep switching to another argument you don't actually believe every time I address the ones you made. Does anyone want to actually respond to this argument:
Quote
It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.
So you are saying because it is comparable that it is okay to mislead newbies to use ripple when bitcoin has people that scam via your described methods or users being "too stupid" to use powerful tools?
Now you can go back and address my points above whether you like how I worded it or not.
Two people reply to me but neither actually addresses the argument I was making at all. You're welcome to make 800 different arguments, but it gets really tedious when you keep switching to another argument you don't actually believe every time I address the ones you made. Does anyone want to actually respond to this argument:
Quote
It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.
Still, proving how defective a system such as Ripple can be, by luring (newbie) people into loosing actual wealth should not be allowed.
It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.counter-party risk in bitcoin is a well known and discussed topic.
To single out that some users of bitcoin are dumb enough to keep their funds on an exchange explains why they lost their funds as a flaw in bitcoin is retarded. Counter-party risk.
Ripple has much more counter-party risk on more levels than one. The glaring one is that ripple is a centralized system backed by Open Coin and can be shutdown if the overseeing government decided to.
AS the OP indicated many times...THE TRICK IS TO GET RIPPLE TO BE ACCEPTED BY GATEWAYS (I.E. financial institutions) AS WELL AS GETTING OTHER USERS TO ACCEPT IT.
One more level of counter-party risk: User trust.
But like TF said you likely will not listen to what I just said and try to justify why ripple works better or compliments bitcoin blah blah blah.
You have an interest in seeing Ripple succeed so you will ignore logic to see it succeed. Typical salesman. But you are forgiven because that is your job. Just dont try to sucker people into your scam please.
Thanks
Still, proving how defective a system such as Ripple can be, by luring (newbie) people into loosing actual wealth should not be allowed.
It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.Still, proving how defective a system such as Ripple can be, by luring (newbie) people into loosing actual wealth should not be allowed.
It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools. 
Still, proving how defective a system such as Ripple can be, by luring (newbie) people into loosing actual wealth should not be allowed.
If anyone should get tagged for this it's the ripple developers for promoting a system which automatically treats even explicitly worthless debt as having the same value as payable-on-demand debt. Sounds like they intend to fix this - but it's hardly a new issue or one which they were unaware of.
It doesn't automatically treat any debt as having any value at all. It considers all assets as completely worthless until and unless you specifically tell it to value some particular asset.MNW's promise was that he will give 100% ROI if pirate defaults. When pirate officially defaulted, he has broken his promise.
Compare to a bunch of tokens / IOUs which has zero terms. No contract unlike MNW, end of story. If I said that I would redeem those for actual BTC, and did not specify a time, then it would have to be a reasonable amount of time.
Compare to a bunch of tokens / IOUs which has zero terms. No contract unlike MNW, end of story. If I said that I would redeem those for actual BTC, and did not specify a time, then it would have to be a reasonable amount of time.
Exactly why I asked Theymos "If I had made the bet with Ripple IOUs instead, would I still have gotten the scammer tag?". It's a legitimate question that he needs to answer. Apparently scamming expected value, cheating, tricking, promising without delivering, whatever you want to call it-- is fine so long as it utilizes the Ripple system.
I assume if you'd promised to settle in ripple IOUs (without specifying any settlement date for those IOUs) then you could have just issued ripple IOUs and then forgotten about them.
An IOU without settlement terms is worthless.
What you did was make a bet - where established practice is immediate settlemenet in cash as soon as the outcome is determined. There's no equivalent default settlement terms for IOUs.
Bets need to be settled in cash on demand (unless agreed otherwise). IOUs don't.
That's the difference - and why you got tagged but TF didn't/shouldn't. If anyone should get tagged for this it's the ripple developers for promoting a system which automatically treats even explicitly worthless debt as having the same value as payable-on-demand debt. Sounds like they intend to fix this - but it's hardly a new issue or one which they were unaware of.
And people handing out ripple trust for no reason is hardly new either - as soon as ripple was launched there were threads where bunches of idiots handed out trust at random to one another.
This is exactly what's wrong with their system. And new users that don't know any better are liable to trust people without having any idea of possible consequences. I would never use ripple to trade.
If anyone should get tagged for this it's the ripple developers for promoting a system which automatically treats even explicitly worthless debt as having the same value as payable-on-demand debt. Sounds like they intend to fix this - but it's hardly a new issue or one which they were unaware of.
And people handing out ripple trust for no reason is hardly new either - as soon as ripple was launched there were threads where bunches of idiots handed out trust at random to one another.
And people handing out ripple trust for no reason is hardly new either - as soon as ripple was launched there were threads where bunches of idiots handed out trust at random to one another.
These are actually very good points.
MNW's promise was that he will give 100% ROI if pirate defaults. When pirate officially defaulted, he has broken his promise.
Compare to a bunch of tokens / IOUs which has zero terms. No contract unlike MNW, end of story. If I said that I would redeem those for actual BTC, and did not specify a time, then it would have to be a reasonable amount of time.
Compare to a bunch of tokens / IOUs which has zero terms. No contract unlike MNW, end of story. If I said that I would redeem those for actual BTC, and did not specify a time, then it would have to be a reasonable amount of time.
Exactly why I asked Theymos "If I had made the bet with Ripple IOUs instead, would I still have gotten the scammer tag?". It's a legitimate question that he needs to answer. Apparently scamming expected value, cheating, tricking, promising without delivering, whatever you want to call it-- is fine so long as it utilizes the Ripple system.
I assume if you'd promised to settle in ripple IOUs (without specifying any settlement date for those IOUs) then you could have just issued ripple IOUs and then forgotten about them.
An IOU without settlement terms is worthless.
What you did was make a bet - where established practice is immediate settlemenet in cash as soon as the outcome is determined. There's no equivalent default settlement terms for IOUs.
Bets need to be settled in cash on demand (unless agreed otherwise). IOUs don't.
That's the difference - and why you got tagged but TF didn't/shouldn't. If anyone should get tagged for this it's the ripple developers for promoting a system which automatically treats even explicitly worthless debt as having the same value as payable-on-demand debt. Sounds like they intend to fix this - but it's hardly a new issue or one which they were unaware of.
And people handing out ripple trust for no reason is hardly new either - as soon as ripple was launched there were threads where bunches of idiots handed out trust at random to one another.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Well at least now we know why Theymos isn't doing anything about TradeFortress.
You can see it in the trust page. theymos currently trusts:
Maged
OgNasty
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
BadBear
BCB
TradeFortress
You can see it in the trust page. theymos currently trusts:
Maged
OgNasty
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
BadBear
BCB
TradeFortress
Oh this thread is great in showing that side of ripple which most people don't understand and are not even aware of. The way the system works basically looks like a three-click scam creator for script kiddies.
The problem is that the default 'quality' factor of newly created trust lines by the client is a bad value. It should be zero (meaning "don't ripple through me") instead of one (meaning "exchange these IOUs for any other IOU I trust of the same currency at 1:1).
I've opened a GitHub issue on it.
Seem like they should hire you to kick their system into shape!
Oh this thread is great in showing that side of ripple which most people don't understand and are not even aware of. The way the system works basically looks like a three-click scam creator for script kiddies.
The problem is that the default 'quality' factor of newly created trust lines by the client is a bad value. It should be zero (meaning "don't ripple through me") instead of one (meaning "exchange these IOUs for any other IOU I trust of the same currency at 1:1).
I've opened a GitHub issue on it.
Did you come here from the trollbox on BTCe? Grow Up.
You know that's exactly the dumbass sort of question that proves my point for me. Shut up and go on a reading binge until you know who I am.
Oh this thread is great in showing that side of ripple which most people don't understand and are not even aware of. The way the system works basically looks like a three-click scam creator for script kiddies.
I am waiting for the first ripple gateway-gate. There will be someone who'll create a gateway and bunch of fake ripple users trading on this gateway like crazy, providing lower spreads and much greater liquidity than Bitstamp's gateway users. Plus some marketing efforts to gain the traction. Most of actively trading ripple users will trust that gateway to be able to trade on it with its users, then one day they'll suck all available BTC.Bitstamp and USD.Bistamp and *.OtherLegitimateGateways replacing them with “equally trusted” BTC.Theirs and USD.Theirs, then withdraw to Bitstamp/other gateways real systems, exchange any USD into BTC and send the real BTC away, then close the shop and laugh.
I am waiting for the first ripple gateway-gate. There will be someone who'll create a gateway and bunch of fake ripple users trading on this gateway like crazy, providing lower spreads and much greater liquidity than Bitstamp's gateway users. Plus some marketing efforts to gain the traction. Most of actively trading ripple users will trust that gateway to be able to trade on it with its users, then one day they'll suck all available BTC.Bitstamp and USD.Bistamp and *.OtherLegitimateGateways replacing them with “equally trusted” BTC.Theirs and USD.Theirs, then withdraw to Bitstamp/other gateways real systems, exchange any USD into BTC and send the real BTC away, then close the shop and laugh.
Sounds like this is exactly the proof of concept TF was displaying.
Why are you abdicating your responsibilities?
Because they've received a lot of money from BFL both as a forum entity and individually as mods, not all of them but most of them. BFL is obviously a scam and was created to be a scam!Shit, dude. Do you have any transaction ID's of those payments?
I'm missing my BFL payments and would like to know to which wallet I sent them.
Any help is appreciated.
Sincerely,
-psy
Jump to: