FYI, the core network rules have already changed. Transactions from addresses with less than 300 XRP are now accepted as this limit is reduced.
This is a "hard fork" in Bitcoin terms.
Topic: Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 15. (Read 45626 times)
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
The more I learn about Ripple, the more I think that it's too important to leave in the hands of a private company. You almost want to fork the code the moment it becomes available, and replace the transaction-throttling XRPs with some tiny amount of BTC (like 100 satoshis per txn), so it's truly an open financial network. I can see large corporations signing onto 'Bipple' knowing that it's a consortium model outside of the whims of OpenCoin.
wow. now we know why they're hesitating to release.
Anything centralized can be broken. Ripple can be hacked seized and shut down in an instant if the powers that be don't want it around.
Since source is closed it isn't like someone can build on top of the ripple system....but why would you want to given things would likely still be centralized.
We 100% agree. That's why we designed Ripple not to require any central authorities and why we're working to open source the server code. Since source is closed it isn't like someone can build on top of the ripple system....but why would you want to given things would likely still be centralized.
Anything centralized can be broken. Ripple can be hacked seized and shut down in an instant if the powers that be don't want it around.
Since source is closed it isn't like someone can build on top of the ripple system....but why would you want to given things would likely still be centralized.
Since source is closed it isn't like someone can build on top of the ripple system....but why would you want to given things would likely still be centralized.
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
How would Ripple help? Opencoin can ignore a Seize Warrant? Or the Exchanges that are federated with Ripple can ignore a Seize Warrant?
As Ripple clearly facilitates fiat transfers we can be sure that Opencoin have complied with all the MSB regulations. Absolutely sure.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/full-picture-on-us-msb-regs-state-and-federal-200443
Yeah, that's a key question to ask them this weekend at BTC2013 -- what licenses do they have, and which ones do they intend to get? Most startups in the financial space tend to assume that the regulations are for the other guys. But Chris Larsen has been around finance for a while, so I'm hopeful.
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
How would Ripple help? Opencoin can ignore a Seize Warrant? Or the Exchanges that are federated with Ripple can ignore a Seize Warrant?
As Ripple clearly facilitates fiat transfers we can be sure that Opencoin have complied with all the MSB regulations. Absolutely sure.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/full-picture-on-us-msb-regs-state-and-federal-200443
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
How would Ripple help? Opencoin can ignore a Seize Warrant? Or the Exchanges that are federated with Ripple can ignore a Seize Warrant?
Presumably, the Ripple network would 'mark down' the Dwolla-MtGox connection in the graph and find a new route for BTC/USD exchange instantly, a la IP routing. Coinlab and Coinbase are both MSB-compliant, for example.
https://ripple.com/wiki/Network_splits
I seriously doubt if they have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem.
LOL, I love this:I seriously doubt if they have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem.
Note: There is currently no way to tell if you are in the network minority. This feature is coming.
In contrast, if you're in the minority, you won't know until manual intervention with Bitcoin. If the world splits (as it did recently) people who are on the minority blockchain have no way to know that they are transacting on a block chain the rest of the world does not think is the longest chain. At best, you could statistically infer you were in the minority eventually based on blocks being found too slowly.
Bitcoin could adopt the method Ripple uses to solve this problem. Major mining pools could periodically broadcast a signed object stating the hash of the tip of the blockchain they are currently building on. You could then know if you were in the minority.
What consensus is it you have been talking about anyway? Global consensus? If my transaction with someone only gets validated by about 20 nodes, how do the decision, say, propagates to the 1000 other validators globally? Especially if I try to send two transactions simultaneously to two different non-overlapping groups of validators?
And the way you talked about Bitcoin is, to say the best, dubious, it's up to the miner to work after the block it received from another, or persist on his own chain, even if you somehow choose the wrong chain due to propagation time, it's unlikely you will make the same mistake when you receive a second, or a third block. Moreover, Ripple never have miners, and Bitcoin common users never have to worry, their transactions will eventually be included.
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
How would Ripple help? Opencoin can ignore a Seize Warrant? Or the Exchanges that are federated with Ripple can ignore a Seize Warrant?
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
The more I learn about Ripple, the more I think that it's too important to leave in the hands of a private company. You almost want to fork the code the moment it becomes available, and replace the transaction-throttling XRPs with some tiny amount of BTC (like 100 satoshis per txn), so it's truly an open financial network. I can see large corporations signing onto 'Bipple' knowing that it's a consortium model outside of the whims of OpenCoin.
Recent events just highlight exactly why Ripple is necessary. Bitcoin needs Ripple in order to have a chance at legitimacy and mass adoption. It may already be too late but for now, I stay hopeful.
I can't believe Google Ventures and IDG Capital Partners (a $2.5 billion fund) just invested in OpenCoin. Man, these guys are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes!
Nothing makes me trust something more than when Google gets involved.
Perhaps you'd show the source code, but that prevents you from stealth changing network core rules like you already did.
What are you referring to? We do change network core rules all the time, primarily to add features, but what do you think was a "stealth" change?
Listening to David Schwartz ("JoelKatz") describe Ripple -- really good overview around some of the use cases, better metaphors than you'll find on the Ripple site.
Starts around 12:30, Episode #007
http://letstalkbitcoin.com
Starts around 12:30, Episode #007
http://letstalkbitcoin.com
Can you say more about that avalanche algorithm? Or is it just the process of switching to the majority (or plurality) ledger if there is one?
Yes, you switch to the majority valid ledger.Quote
And what does a node do if for whatever reason all of its UNL nodes suddenly endorse a ledger that's on a different branch?
The node basically uses the following algorithm:1) It switches to the majority of the ledgers it has not rejected. But it does not endorse that ledger.
2) The node tries to determine if that ledger can be endorsed -- determining whether it's a valid following ledger or not.
3) If the node determines the ledger is invalid, it rejects that ledger.
4) While this is going on, the node keeps tabs on any other nodes that have changed their position.
Over time, more and more nodes will veto any invalid ledgers in the mix and soon all honest nodes will be endorsing valid ledgers. The valid ledger with the most endorsements will eventually win.
This doesn't take nearly as long to actually happen as it might sound like. The ledgers will tend to be very, very similar and only differences are analyzed.
Ill give OpenCoin this. These guys are really, really smart. One of the best hustles Ive ever seen actually...
Thanks for all the explanation, I'm getting a much clearer picture now. Is there a special reason the consensus process starts with a threshold value of 50%? Near 0% it would be like set union, while near 100% it would like set intersection. It seems logical to start at a lower value top mop up some transactions, and gradually ramp up the required level to come closer to a consensus. But why 50%?
The level is gradually increased to speed convergence. 50% for the initial operation was chosen at first arbitrarily -- the choice easiest to justify and the one that seemed the most "fair". But then simulation showed that it avalanched the fastest.If you pick a number much higher than 50%, you don't have as much room to ratchet up, and that can cause pathological behavior. If you pick a number much lower than 50%, you can find a transaction in the consensus set that can be hard to acquire because you aren't connected to nodes that have it.
Thanks for all the explanation, I'm getting a much clearer picture now. Is there a special reason the consensus process starts with a threshold value of 50%? Near 0% it would be like set union, while near 100% it would like set intersection. It seems logical to start at a lower value to mop up some transactions, and gradually ramp up the required level to come closer to a consensus. But why 50%?
Can you say more about that avalanche algorithm? Or is it just the process of switching to the majority (or plurality) ledger if there is one?
Yes, you switch to the majority valid ledger.Quote
And what does a node do if for whatever reason all of its UNL nodes suddenly endorse a ledger that's on a different branch?
The node basically uses the following algorithm:1) It switches to the majority of the ledgers it has not rejected. But it does not endorse that ledger.
2) The node tries to determine if that ledger can be endorsed -- determining whether it's a valid following ledger or not.
3) If the node determines the ledger is invalid, it rejects that ledger.
4) While this is going on, the node keeps tabs on any other nodes that have changed their position.
Over time, more and more nodes will veto any invalid ledgers in the mix and soon all honest nodes will be endorsing valid ledgers. The valid ledger with the most endorsements will eventually win.
This doesn't take nearly as long to actually happen as it might sound like. The ledgers will tend to be very, very similar and only differences are analyzed.
Jump to: