Topic: Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 13. (Read 45626 times)

"We're not yet as open as you would like us to be" - this is bullshit.

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

payment system for fiat currencies: It's non reversible without central intervention (and that can be avoided with mixing services for example) which does have disadvantages, and it would need to have real gateways / exchanges - it would most definitely government insured banks. There's also the issue of not all debt are alike, which I am aware that you have it on a planning list somewhere, but it leads to consolidation of "gateways" and monopolies. The current solution of having everyone acting like liquidity providers is flawed.

platform for social credit: Why not call it dirty social debt? Let's take a look at this:

Right now in the 'fiat world', you can accept $50 trivially from a casual friend, even if they borrowed it from a bank. If that friend cannot pay back, then their creditor will seek them, and you're not out of anything.

That's cool, debt is essential in a functioning economy, but: if your friend sends you a $50 IOU and defaults.. oops. Your friend could send you a $50 IOU from a FDIC (talking in US terms) insured bank for example, but that's not a social credit system, you're back to sending money.

My problems, again, go back to you trying to overtake bitcoin with something that's vaguely similar to bitcoin, but is much much different from the philosophy of aims of it, and the community. It's seriously misleading / dishonest with your claims which are not currently true (and won't be, unless competition no longer becomes a factor, to which you are locked into XRPs by the virtue of inertia).

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

So basically, Bob's client will check if Charlie agrees with Eve, even if Charlie is not on his UNL? Or will Charlie stop working because he is the only honest validator left(assume he just represents 50% of the network)

Seriously? You're going to repeat this as if you've never said it before and neither address nor even acknowledge the responses I've already made to this exact same point?

Yes, we're not yet as open as you would like us to be. But we are already more open than pretty much every other payment system out there.

@JoelKatz

You still don't seem to get it, do you ?
Lying on your site & wiki that you are OPEN while you are really CLOSED makes you a SCAMMER already.

What else do you want to add ?

You scammed me, you scammed everybody who was looking for an answer "what is this whole Ripple thing about ?".

Right, that's why there's a consensus process. The network comes to a consensus on a set of candidate transactions. Whichever transaction first gets included in such a set "wins", unless both do in which case a deterministic rule chooses the winner.

A network consensus is a consensus of the entire network as a whole. If Charlie and Eve are the network and reach a consensus, then that's a network consensus. Until Charlie and Eve reach a consensus, neither of them will consider any transactions confirmed.

I guess so.

There aren't validators for specific transactions. Validators validate the entire ledger as a whole. Nobody has to ask them to do this, if they want to participate, that's what they do. If they don't do that, then they aren't validating.

Point is, you don't know which one comes "prior" to whom, there is network propagation time difference, Mallory will try to send nearly simultaneously. And what is "network consensus"? If it's only Charlie and Eve, they are the network.

I think it's you who misunderstood what I said.

Oh, wow. No, you totally misunderstand the process. Validators validate *ledgers*, not transactions. A ledger contains the total state of the entire Ripple network.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/7563/85

That's not at all how Ripple works. You treat a transaction as confirmed if it's in the network consensus ledger or any prior ledger.

I have that alert off. I updated my answer as soon as I saw your answer.

What do you think of Ripple as a payment system for fiat currencies and as a platform for social credit?

Seems to me that, not just both sides of a transaction, but everyone who is two degrees of separation away, should share some overlapping validators.

Consider this:

Mallory wants to double spend, so she sends a transaction to Alice, with Charlie as the validator, while sending a conflicting one to Bob, with Eve, her colluder, as the validator, which both Mallory and Bob trusts.

Now Charlie gets his version of the transaction and ask Eve whether she has anything conflicting, Eve said no, but refuses to sign Charlie's version of the ledger, Charlie decides to not trust Eve anymore. But the problem is, Bob still trusts Eve, and happily accepts Eve's version of ledger. One day, Bob decides to verify with Charlie, and Charlie tells Bob his version of the story, Bob is surprised and turns to Eve, but Eve claims to never have received anything about a conflicting ledger from Charlie, instead, it's Charlie who refused to sign Eve's version of ledger without a reason, that way, Bob can't tell which one is a liar, Charlie or Eve, unless he initially trusted both on his UNL, which he shouldn't need to simply because Charlie validates Mallory's transaction to Alice.

Market research / polling across people who use Bitcoin (no, not just forum users, that is quite a biased sample IMO). I am not spending my bitcoins blindly.

Correction: became a liability for millions

See my above response (which you've being alerted to when you try to make a reply, so making this comment is 'dishonest').

TL;DR response: OpenCoin Inc is using false premises to get people into the Ripple boat. IN the ripple boat, XRP is better than BTC. Outside of the ripple boat, XRP is a centrally controlled (for as long as you hold a significant stake) currency that will go the way of .. [everything that failed before].

It's like the App Store vs Cydia. Of course the App Store is superior to Cydia in accessibility and availability, but because of Apple's limitations, not because it is truly better.

I don't agree with the premises of this argument, but even if I did, the argument seems bizarre. If XRP is inferior to BTC for commerce, are you saying commerce will switch to it anyway? If you're saying XRP is superior to BTC for commerce, and you also see Ripple as primarily a Bitcoin competitor, aren't you conceding that your opposition to Ripple is an irrational preference for an inferior system?

I give up. How do you know this?

That is a lie, Ripple is closed source because if you open source it, in the spirit of FOSS someone will fork Ripple, and create a fairly distributed version which will overtake your Ripple in the bitcoin community in a very short amount of time, which is why your source code has not being released.

The reason why you're keeping Ripple closed source for the foreseeable future is exactly that reason. Ripple may become open sourced, like Reddit, when competition is no longer a factor, however Reddit did not claim they were open source from day one. Now get why I'm advertising RippleScam.org?

Also, let us have a honest discussion / debate please, Ripple is competing with Bitcoin. I don't have a problem with that, I support cryptocurrencies that are better than Bitcoin, and I supported Ripple. The fact that you are riding on "open source" and "decentralized" when it is a flat out lie is why I am against Ripple, on top of other of your company's misleading claims. It's a dishonest way to try and take over the Bitcoin market.

ripple is clearly a huge ponzi sheme , prolly it will be the biggest in history of internet.

No, validators don't sign transactions. They just sign proposals and validations of ledgers. None of this information really needs to be stored unless you're analyzing the historical behavior of validators. All you typically care about are the validations for very recent ledgers. You get to historical ledgers by walking the hash chains.

We have a distributed storage system on our roadmap so that servers can agree to hold pieces of the total network history. We're not at the point where that's needed yet.

We don't see ourselves as competing with Bitcoin. And I don't understand why you think getting community input earlier in the process is a bad thing. Nobody wants Ripple to be open and decentralized more than we do. We understand that not doing these things is a drag on adoption and creates potential hazards. We are in complete agreement about this and your constant pretending that this is some kind of disagreement seems somewhat dishonest.

They are, you haven't read enough. Their plan of action is to try and convince bitcoiners that ripple is open source and great. Then, because of their debt only system except XRP, commerce will naturally move towards XRP. This won't be a problem if, you know, they actually implemented real bitcoin sending - but that will make Bitcoin superior to XRP on their payment network, so not going to happen.

Seems that every transaction has to have all validators' signatures attached, will there be storage problem?

They aren't really a competition for Bitcoin...