Topic: Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 11. (Read 45626 times)

Another thing:

But that is NOT what they are stating.

They are stating (on their page & wiki) that they are OPEN SOURCE and DECENTRALIZED *RIGHT NOW*, not in some distant future.

So when they get people to invest money and time to the ripple idea, that is an outright scam.

I had a few. Please scroll back, I don't like repeating myself. Sorry if I'm not being very polite, but repeating things are not very productive.

Just because something is not open source, doesn't make it a scam. However, saying you are open source when you are not, and you are not going to open source it in the near future because of reasons I've said previously, with the sole intention to drive falsified adoption by Bitcoiners is.

You seem to be confusing open source with reverse engineering, too. People reverse engineer Windows (WINE, reactOS, for example), but that does NOT make windows open source!

Well, my Ripple address is public in this very forum, just take a look yourself.
As a hint - yes, I own some Ripples, but I didn't get a single XRP from anyone to post anything beyond my Ripple address.
On the other hand, if you just look at signatures in this forum and offers by TradFortress, there are people who will pay BTC to discredit Ripple. Why do you even have to do that, if it is soooo obvious?!

The algorithm (think Bitcoin genesis block) is already explained by JoelKatz and what is open source at the moment can be seen from their github account. All other things (ledger etc.) can be extracted with the existing open source client.

As nelisky said: Are you trying to get access to the source code, because you want to actually develop something or is it more just out of a principle of yours?

There are proprietory Bitcoin miners (epecially hardware) out there, I don't see you calling them scam even though it is very easily possible that for example some ASICs have a built in expiration date, mine secretly for their manufacturers too or do other stuff...

Oh, @TradeFortress, just repeat the question please - I also don't really recall you asking any relevant unanswered question that was really hard to answer but that doesn't mean you aren't right. After all it seems you and ShadowOfHarbringer have a quite poor grasp on how Ripple actually works (as demonstarted by your "21 Trillion BTC" screenshot or his question about an "algorithm to create XRP"), maybe you just misunderstood something.

It's OK, when you start asking hard questions JoelKatz starts ignoring you.

See, that's something I can not agree with. Lying to get the public to come in and throw money at you, sure. But stating they'll be open just not right now to drive adoption? I'm really happy they decided to do the open beta phase and not just play alone until the opening of the source! Ripple is a hard concept to grasp and the "SCAM you can make your our currency" claims explain just how hard the concept is.

Just like Bitcoin, though in a more social and less technical way, Ripple is pushing the responsibility of using the system to the people using the system, i.e. be careful of who you trust, thing about what you are transacting, etc. Sure, it can be abused, it will be abused, has probably been abused already. But just saying "don't use it because OpenCoin (the devs, the early adopters) will profit more" is like saying the early bitcoin adopters or heavy investors are scamming the ones that use bitcoin as currency... really?

Heh, that was not my point at all, sorry if that's what it sounded like. I just meant that I knew my reply could trigger a troll-like discussion, not that you were trolling.

I agree that I may have a troll-ish style of discussion (sorry for that) but I also do have valid arguments (of which almost none was really adressed by JoelKatz).

Doesn't matter - that is not the point.
My point is that they are trying to sell their idea to the public while lying about what the idea is really about.

I don't care about whether ripple is open or closed. I only care about if it is advertised as such.


I disagree.

When you first lie to get people into your project and then profit from it - that is already scamming, because people lost their funds and their time to use your fake scammy project. That is already scamming.

Also, if you are going to ignore me when I ask you hard questions, please do not make a comment on RippleScam.org that you welcome to debate this.

The genesis ledger puts a configurable number of XRPs in a well-known account. This is the only way XRPs can be "generated".

Right now, the only thing stopping OpenCoin from printing more XRP is the fact that we have not created any method to do so, have promised not to create any method of doing so, and doing so would open us up to dozens of lawsuits. The only way to do so would be to get the majority of validators to agree to the change, and even then it's possible (in fact, I hope this would happen) a stubborn minority could split the ledger and ultimately win. So once the network is distributed, this is as difficult as raising the Bitcoin block reward.

I understand that, but you can easily not use the system until they open it properly. I don't see what all the fuss is about honestly.

But by asking, what happens is that you naturally become aligned to support OpenCoin Inc. It's really nothing more than a business deal, and that's not a open currency or payments system.

That question wasn't targeted at you. You are a staff of the company, they pay your salary.  That's not a bribe.

But since you are at it, can you elaborate on how the XRPs are generated?  and What measures are in place to stop the company from printing more in the future?

I meant it as it's broken, what Eve bets on is that he can help Mallory defrauds Bob, by breaking the network, and even if Bob checks with Charlie, he still can't prove Eve lied, so the cost of doing evil is small.

The network is broken if there is no network consensus ledger. If there is a network consensus ledger, Charlie can't join anything without signing it. (This isn't 100% true, but the effect is the same. He can actually join slightly before he signs it, but only by participating with existing validators in figuring out the next network consensus ledger following a valid one.)

See my "agreement room" analogy. You can't validate until you walk in the room. You can't walk in the room without agreeing with those already in it.

I usually steer clear of such discussions but as I usually enjoy ShadowOfHarbringer's comments quite a bit, I'll just go ahead and risk "feeding the trolls (tm)";

Did you request access to the source? They are not open as advertised, granted, but they are also not closed as people seem to assume. I heard of ripple, thought it was cool, had my aha moment, planned a service. Now, to do this properly I had to get the source, so I asked... and now I do have access to the source. I mean, c'mon, you don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but just asking sometimes takes you a long way.

I know that is no replacement for the 'open source' approach, but given the speed at which problems have been ironed out instead of exploited, and knowing the complexity of the system I have to agree that until a stable base is achieved it is easier to keep this behind a gated wall... even though the gate isn't really locked

Now to your point; scammers don't lie, scammers scam. Liars are the ones lying, and while scammers are certainly liars, they are so much more that that. I'm sure you have lied more than once in your life. Heck, I'm almost certain you have lied more than once in the past hour, but that doesn't make you a scammer, does it?

Joel, you didn't carefully read my previous posts. I consider it fair if Bob got defrauded if he only trust Eve on his UNL. My concern is that, even if Charlie later joined Bob's UNL, Bob still can't tell if Eve was a liar, if he trust both Charlie and Eve equally.

I have a feeling I will not receive a response to my replies. Thank you for an open discussion, and have a good day.

The protocol is documented in the client source code, in the wiki, and most of the gaps can be figured out by simply looking at existing transactions and their effects. (Each transaction is published along with precisely what changes it made.) I agree the documentation could be a lot better, but I don't think you'll find people who have questions about the protocol that haven't been answered.

With the vast majority of other payment systems, not only is there no documentation of their internal protocol but even if you knew their internal protocol, you still could neither see nor submit a transaction. With Ripple, anyone can see any transaction and anyone can submit a transaction and if it meets objective criteria, it will be processed.

The UNL determine which validators you listen to.

It sounds like you're asking if horribly broken inputs will produce horribly broken outputs. The answer is yes.