Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 12.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 16, 2013, 05:56:06 AM

Quote from: SGExodus on May 16, 2013, 05:49:19 AM

How many XRPs did Ripple bribe you to post such poor defense.

I have just over one million XRP.

Quote

What's so open about Ripple at the moment?

The protocol is documented. The transaction formats are document. The client is open source. All transactions are published along with the precise changes they've made. All network state is public. The network requires no central authorities. Pretty much all technical questions about the network's internals are answered. You don't need OpenCoin's, or anyone else's, permission to open an account (assuming you have $1), operate a gateway, operate a bot, perform transactions, and so on. While OpenCoin could attempt to exercise operational control over the network, OpenCoin has never done so and never intends to do so. (Other than to add features, change reserve levels, and so on to maintain the network. But never to target an individual or group.)

Please show me where the protocol is documented, Joel, I don't consider the wiki to be proper documents.(as you have admitted, something there are terribly outdated)

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 16, 2013, 05:56:06 AM

Quote from: SGExodus on May 16, 2013, 05:49:19 AM

How many XRPs did Ripple bribe you to post such poor defense.

I have just over one million XRP.

Quote

What's so open about Ripple at the moment?

The protocol is documented. The transaction formats are document. The client is open source. All transactions are published along with the precise changes they've made. All network state is public. The network requires no central authorities. Pretty much all technical questions about the network's internals are answered. You don't need OpenCoin's, or anyone else's, permission to open an account (assuming you have $1), operate a gateway, operate a bot, perform transactions, and so on. While OpenCoin could attempt to exercise operational control over the network, OpenCoin has never done so and never intends to do so. (Other than to add features, change reserve levels, and so on to maintain the network. But never to target an individual or group.)

Let's see how exactly true this is when someone gets your private keys, and takes a few billion ripples -- or when a court orders you to do exactly [blah].

How would you respond if a breach in your private key management has caused you to lose 50 billion ripples for example? With Bitcoin, if Gavin loses BTC (like he has done before from hacks), transactions are not going to be reversed - other core devs will not approve it, and it would require a hard fork.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: SGExodus on May 16, 2013, 05:49:19 AM

How many XRPs did Ripple bribe you to post such poor defense.

I have just over one million XRP.

Quote

What's so open about Ripple at the moment?

The protocol is documented. The transaction formats are document. The client is open source. All transactions are published along with the precise changes they've made. All network state is public. The network requires no central authorities. Pretty much all technical questions about the network's internals are answered. You don't need OpenCoin's, or anyone else's, permission to open an account (assuming you have $1), operate a gateway, operate a bot, perform transactions, and so on. While OpenCoin could attempt to exercise operational control over the network, OpenCoin has never done so and never intends to do so. (Other than to add features, change reserve levels, and so on to maintain the network. But never to target an individual or group.)

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Also, if replacing decentralized money via deception and shady practices were not your corporate aim, then you need to stop that.

Even if you open sourced it when you publicly launched (which should have being what you done if you were honest), just like with FOSS software there's a difference with open source - and being with the open source philosophy. A client that connects to proprietary servers may be open sourced, but it's not in the spirit of it.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 16, 2013, 05:47:59 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on May 16, 2013, 05:44:29 AM

So essentially, if Charlie and Eve refuse to agree with each other, no transaction will ever be "processed"?

That's correct. If we assume one of them is honest and the other one is dishonest, then the honest node has only dishonest validators on its list and the entire rest of the world is colluding against it. It would be crazy to trust the results of a transaction under those circumstances.

Ripple prefers to fail by telling you that it can't meet its requirements rather than silently letting you rely on results that are in fact unreliable.

THen why is UNL also important? After all, Bob will not accept the transaction if there is no network consensus(I did imply Bob has only Eve on his UNL)

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

I'd also like to quote this PM reply:

Quote

Quote from: cadcoin on May 16, 2013, 09:50:23 AM

But this cannot be converted to real btc.

Did you just realize that? BTC in Ripple are not real. They cannot be converted into real BTC unless someone wants to buy your Ripple BTCs for real BTCs.

This is what the social experiment is about.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on May 16, 2013, 05:46:29 AM

Quote from: Sukrim on May 16, 2013, 05:36:24 AM

Open can mean many things. For example all transactions on ripple are publicly available. I'd call that open. You probably want a full open source stack including server software. This is announced, but wasting time of jk here on the forum won't help getting this published faster.

But their page lists a GitHub account (as if that is the source of entire Ripple) and their wiki says that Ripple is COMPLETELY open source and COMPLETELY decentralized, while that is an outright lie.

Don't you get my point ? That is a lie. Lying is what scammers do.

I agree with this. There wouldn't be anyone calling you scammers if you were honest (but that probably won't get you the bitcoin community to hop in), but you are misleading people in thinking Ripple is something for the "free money" movement when it is clearly against it and is set to stop / destroy Bitcoin with false advertising and commercial backing.

The fact that you plan to make it open source and actually distributed (not decentralized) until much later does not come into pay, see earlier comments on competition.

SGExodus

full member

Activity: 232

Merit: 100

Quote from: Sukrim on May 16, 2013, 05:36:24 AM

Open can mean many things. For example all transactions on ripple are publicly available. I'd call that open. You probably want a full open source stack including server software. This is announced, but wasting time of jk here on the forum won't help getting this published faster.

Ripple is already more open than any bank or bitcoin exchange I know of while still (depending on your gateway) being as safe. That alone is a great feature. I agree that an open source server would be great, I am willing to wait though and I trust JoelKatz more in that regard than you.

How many XRPs did Ripple bribe you to post such poor defense.

This is the exact words on Ripple website: "Ripple is an open source peer-to-peer payment system. Ripple lets you easily, cheaply, and safely send money over the Internet to anyone, anywhere in the world. Because Ripple is P2P software, no individual, corporation, or government controls Ripple. Anyone can create a Ripple account. The Ripple network operates through the combined efforts of the copies of the Ripple software that are running all over the world."

What's so open about Ripple at the moment? Can you elaborate on the algorithm they used to premined the 100 billion XRP?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: oakpacific on May 16, 2013, 05:44:29 AM

So essentially, if Charlie and Eve refuse to agree with each other, no transaction will ever be "processed"?

That's correct. If we assume one of them is honest and the other one is dishonest, then the honest node has only dishonest validators on its list and the entire rest of the world is colluding against it. It would be crazy to trust the results of a transaction under those circumstances.

Ripple prefers to fail by telling you that it can't meet its requirements rather than silently letting you rely on results that are in fact unreliable.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: Sukrim on May 16, 2013, 05:36:24 AM

Open can mean many things. For example all transactions on ripple are publicly available. I'd call that open. You probably want a full open source stack including server software. This is announced, but wasting time of jk here on the forum won't help getting this published faster.

But their page lists a GitHub account (as if that is the source of entire Ripple) and their wiki says that Ripple is COMPLETELY open source and COMPLETELY decentralized, while that is an outright lie.

Don't you get my point ? That is a lie. Lying is what scammers do.

wopwop

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

JoelKatz please get cancer

Thank you

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on May 16, 2013, 05:30:06 AM

Do you mind responding to my previous comments, after changing the topic?

Hope you haven't missed it because it was on the previous page.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 16, 2013, 05:42:58 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on May 16, 2013, 05:36:44 AM

Yes, but if Charlie is not on Bob's UNL, Bob will deliver goods to Mallory before it's too late, because Eve says OK, which is fair, since Charlie was not on the UNL. But the problem is, even if Bob adds Charlie later and being told by him that Mallory was doing double-spending, he still can not decide which one, Charlie or Eve, was cheating. Tell me if I was wrong.

Validators don't tell you that someone was double spending. Validators don't validate transactions. All validators do is work cooperatively to agree on candidate transaction sets and sign the network consensus ledger. Bob will not deliver anything to anyone until the transaction is in the network consensus ledger and the majority of validators have committed to it. If there is not a single network consensus ledger that has a clear majority of validators, nobody will consider any transactions validated.

So essentially, if Charlie and Eve refuse to agree with each other, no transaction will ever be "processed"?

Quote

You're presuming a new validator has somehow come with a new ledger. They can't do that.

Oh I didn't, all I talk about is the "current" set of transactions, prior ledgers are identical on both Charlie and Eve.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: oakpacific on May 16, 2013, 05:36:44 AM

Yes, but if Charlie is not on Bob's UNL, Bob will deliver goods to Mallory before it's too late, because Eve says OK, which is fair, since Charlie was not on the UNL. But the problem is, even if Bob adds Charlie later and being told by him that Mallory was doing double-spending, he still can not decide which one, Charlie or Eve, was cheating. Tell me if I was wrong.

Validators don't tell you that someone was double spending. Validators don't validate transactions. All validators do is work cooperatively to agree on candidate transaction sets and sign the network consensus ledger. Bob will not deliver anything to anyone until the transaction is in the network consensus ledger and the majority of validators have committed to it. If there is not a single network consensus ledger that has a clear majority of validators, nobody will consider any transactions validated.

Each ledger is built on the prior ledger and has a hash back to it. There's no way validators can later invalidate some prior transactions. For a new validator to start validating, the first thing it does is sign the network consensus ledger. You're presuming a new validator has somehow come with a new ledger. They can't do that.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 16, 2013, 05:33:45 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on May 16, 2013, 05:30:50 AM

You are lying scamming bastards, that's who you are. Either OpenSource and TRULY decentralize Ripple or you forever will be just that.

I'm really trying to be polite and honest with you, but you are making it extremely difficult.

Why would I make it easy for a scammer to be polite ? So you can win the discussion and convert more people easily to your scammy idea ?

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: Sukrim on May 16, 2013, 05:36:24 AM

Open can mean many things. For example all transactions on ripple are publicly available. I'd call that open. You probably want a full open source stack including server software. This is announced, but wasting time of jk here on the forum won't help getting this published faster.

Ripple is already more open than any bank or bitcoin exchange I know of while still (depending on your gateway) being as safe. That alone is a great feature. I agree that an open source server would be great, I am willing to wait though and I trust JoelKatz more in that regard than you.

Sukrim, please see my response in the previous page.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on May 16, 2013, 05:30:53 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on May 16, 2013, 05:28:31 AM

So basically, Bob's client will check if Charlie agrees with Eve, even if Charlie is not on his UNL?

Bob's client will determine the network consensus ledger and consider the transaction validated if it's either in that ledger or in a prior ledger. The network consensus ledger is determined by checking valdiations which sign the hash of the entire ledger. The exact method is a little complicated and has a few different cases, but the basic idea is that you're looking for a ledger that has been validated by significantly more than half of the validators on your UNL. Until you can find such a ledger that includes the transaction (possibly in a prior ledger) you do not consider the transaction validated.

Yes, but if Charlie is not on Bob's UNL, Bob will deliver goods to Mallory before it's too late, because Eve says OK, which is fair, since Charlie was not on the UNL. But the problem is, even if Bob adds Charlie later and being told by him that Mallory was doing double-spending, he still can not decide which one, Charlie or Eve, was cheating. Tell me if I was wrong.

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Open can mean many things. For example all transactions on ripple are publicly available. I'd call that open. You probably want a full open source stack including server software. This is announced, but wasting time of jk here on the forum won't help getting this published faster.

Ripple is already more open than any bank or bitcoin exchange I know of while still (depending on your gateway) being as safe. That alone is a great feature. I agree that an open source server would be great, I am willing to wait though and I trust JoelKatz more in that regard than you.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on May 16, 2013, 05:30:50 AM

You are lying scamming bastards, that's who you are. Either OpenSource and TRULY decentralize Ripple or you forever will be just that.

I'm really trying to be polite and honest with you, but you are making it extremely difficult.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: oakpacific on May 16, 2013, 05:28:31 AM

So basically, Bob's client will check if Charlie agrees with Eve, even if Charlie is not on his UNL?

Bob's client will determine the network consensus ledger and consider the transaction validated if it's either in that ledger or in a prior ledger. The network consensus ledger is determined by checking valdiations which sign the hash of the entire ledger. The exact method is a little complicated and has a few different cases, but the basic idea is that you're looking for a ledger that has been validated by significantly more than half of the validators on your UNL. Until you can find such a ledger that includes the transaction (possibly in a prior ledger) you do not consider the transaction validated.

Topic: Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 12. (Read 45589 times)