Pages:
Author

Topic: WTF happened to ripple? (Read 21828 times)

full member
Activity: 132
Merit: 100
December 07, 2014, 07:00:47 AM
#70
In this old thread I described how the Ripple consensus model was unsound... that it could be expected to spontaneously break unless the topology met certain characteristics which were unlikely to be met by any graph except a centrally controlled one and that without additional unspecified functionality (perhaps hidden in assumed behaviour of users or via centralization) couldn't resist sibyl attacks. Unfortunately Ripple's creators responded to these concerns-- to the extent that they responded at all-- with evasion and a seeming refusal to make a clear statement of their security assumptions that, coupled with their design, supported their security claims.  And the media and finance industry seems to have largely swallowed their claims without much critical thinking seemingly counting on an orgy of social proof that seems to have been ultimately backed by the same nothingness that backs their pre-mined currency.

I wasn't the only person to point out these issues, more recently Ripple labs published a paper claiming the soundness of their model, which made a number of clearly illogical arguments and rested on many unclear and unsubstantiated assumptions, and it was also criticized by Andrew Miller, for many of the same reasons I criticized it here.

(and in this thread I was handicapped by the fact that ripple was closed source at this time: but even so its limitations were apparent simply from the seemingly impossible claims that its creators couldn't back up)

On Tuesday at a Bitcoin event I was still being harangued by Ripple/Stellar advocates claiming the absolute soundness of the system.  I care about the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem since, in the minds of the public any failure is harmful to all of us, and I don't want to see anyone suffer losses not even the gullible... But it makes no sense for me to spend my limited time providing free consulting for the impossibly torrent of ill-advised, impossibility claiming, systems... especially when they're not thankful and/or respond with obfuscation that makes their work unrealizable or hand-waving without admitting their new assumptions. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but ... hey, I spoke up a bit and people continued on anyways without asking the kind of tough questions they should have been asking. I'm certainly not going to spend all me time correcting everyone who is wrong on the internet, especially when altcoin folks have been known to play pretty dirty toward their critics. No one should assume that other people are going to go out of their way to beg them to not use something broken.

So, when I found out that Stellar spontaneously split consensus state, apparently just as I described in this thread, without even an attacker (though any consensus split is easily exploited by attackers of opportunity once it exists)-- Well, the only thing that surprised me was the burst of honesty in admitting that the system was unsound, but I was also disappointed that the lack of frankness about how fundamental the limitations are in this space-- instead advocating the hope of magical fixes sure to be found by a respected authority, and I was also disappointed that no mention was given of that fact that other experienced people in this space had warned of precisely these issues, going back several years.   I also was saddened to see that no one noticed the dissonance in the 'temporary' solution of converting to a centralized model:  If a system can be converted by some loss correcting central bank into a centralized system ... can we really say it was ever decentralized in the first place?

Perhaps in the future more people will ask the hard questions and demand better answers?  If so, it would be worth more time for experienced people to spend time reviewing other systems and we could all benefit. Otherwise, perhaps those who aren't interested in standing up to some of the rigor we'd normally expect from a cryptosystem will stop calling their broken altcoins "cryptocurrencies".  Those of us who actually want to build sound systems don't want our work sullied by these predictable failures, and being able to say "I told you so" is no consolation.

https://ripple.com/why-the-stellar-forking-issue-does-not-affect-ripple/
legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
December 07, 2014, 04:40:50 AM
#69
So, when I found out that Stellar spontaneously split consensus state, apparently just as I described in this thread

Proof? To me it seems like the changes in https://github.com/stellar/stellard/commit/067d7158720331937fc782cbb230e8d422cd7341 (especially "Consider there is consensus when we detect that we've fallen behind") which are exclusive to Stellar are potentially to blame, not their validation network topology (validators that were operated by one entitiy - SDF - started to disagree with each other, even though they likely had identical UNLs).

I also was saddened to see that no one noticed the dissonance in the 'temporary' solution of converting to a centralized model:  If a system can be converted by some loss correcting central bank into a centralized system ... can we really say it was ever decentralized in the first place?
If that "bank" is system relevant, maybe...? Consider that one day a large majority of Bitcoin exchanges and service providers (BitPay, Coinbase...) decide to only accept Bitcoins sent on their centrally mined block chain. Either they all remove themselves immediately from the Bitcoin community or the Bitcoin community has to move over to their centralized solution. While Bitcoin's community consists of lots of people with lots of different ideas, that's something that is not very likely to "fly"... Stellar on the other hand consists mainly of fake accounts that were used to grab facebook giveaways. Also not a lot of people seem competent enough to run their own nodes (it is not incentivized after all, compared to Bitcoin where at least miners need to run full nodes). In practice, the SDF likely is the only major player (main hosted wallet that contacts SDF hosted nodes by default) in that ecosystem, so it is not that hard to (re)take control over the whole network.
staff
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8808
December 07, 2014, 01:20:28 AM
#68
In this old thread I described how the Ripple consensus model was unsound... that it could be expected to spontaneously break unless the topology met certain characteristics which were unlikely to be met by any graph except a centrally controlled one and that without additional unspecified functionality (perhaps hidden in assumed behaviour of users or via centralization) couldn't resist sibyl attacks. Unfortunately Ripple's creators responded to these concerns-- to the extent that they responded at all-- with evasion and a seeming refusal to make a clear statement of their security assumptions that, coupled with their design, supported their security claims.  And the media and finance industry seems to have largely swallowed their claims without much critical thinking seemingly counting on an orgy of social proof that seems to have been ultimately backed by the same nothingness that backs their pre-mined currency.

I wasn't the only person to point out these issues, more recently Ripple labs published a paper claiming the soundness of their model, which made a number of clearly illogical arguments and rested on many unclear and unsubstantiated assumptions, and it was also criticized by Andrew Miller, for many of the same reasons I criticized it here.

(and in this thread I was handicapped by the fact that ripple was closed source at this time: but even so its limitations were apparent simply from the seemingly impossible claims that its creators couldn't back up)

On Tuesday at a Bitcoin event I was still being harangued by Ripple/Stellar advocates claiming the absolute soundness of the system.  I care about the whole cryptocurrency ecosystem since, in the minds of the public any failure is harmful to all of us, and I don't want to see anyone suffer losses not even the gullible... But it makes no sense for me to spend my limited time providing free consulting for the impossibly torrent of ill-advised, impossibility claiming, systems... especially when they're not thankful and/or respond with obfuscation that makes their work unrealizable or hand-waving without admitting their new assumptions. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but ... hey, I spoke up a bit and people continued on anyways without asking the kind of tough questions they should have been asking. I'm certainly not going to spend all me time correcting everyone who is wrong on the internet, especially when altcoin folks have been known to play pretty dirty toward their critics. No one should assume that other people are going to go out of their way to beg them to not use something broken.

So, when I found out that Stellar spontaneously split consensus state, apparently just as I described in this thread, without even an attacker (though any consensus split is easily exploited by attackers of opportunity once it exists)-- Well, the only thing that surprised me was the burst of honesty in admitting that the system was unsound, but I was also disappointed that the lack of frankness about how fundamental the limitations are in this space-- instead advocating the hope of magical fixes sure to be found by a respected authority, and I was also disappointed that no mention was given of that fact that other experienced people in this space had warned of precisely these issues, going back several years.   I also was saddened to see that no one noticed the dissonance in the 'temporary' solution of converting to a centralized model:  If a system can be converted by some loss correcting central bank into a centralized system ... can we really say it was ever decentralized in the first place?

Perhaps in the future more people will ask the hard questions and demand better answers?  If so, it would be worth more time for experienced people to spend time reviewing other systems and we could all benefit. Otherwise, perhaps those who aren't interested in standing up to some of the rigor we'd normally expect from a cryptosystem will stop calling their broken altcoins "cryptocurrencies".  Those of us who actually want to build sound systems don't want our work sullied by these predictable failures, and being able to say "I told you so" is no consolation.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
March 10, 2013, 07:18:24 PM
#67
Oh, and a shared disadvantage of both colored coins and 2PR is that they can't publish binding offers. That's a disadvantage ripplecoin didn't had. Maybe colored coins usage ends up turning bitcoin into ripplecoin (or an equivalent) through a series of convenient and non-polemic hard forks, who knows.
I'm really doubtful there. Global blockchains to aggregate color coins has horrible scalability and is rife with cost externalization and commons risk.  I think schemes which do not require perpetual global consensus are more interesting especially in terms of things-that-add-to-the-bitcoin-ecosystem.

Good point. Actually I think 2PR will be the best for scalability, but there's some use cases that require public pseudonymous accounting.
And I don't know if it would have been better to start with 2PR, but public accounting of arbitrary assets is what is being developed now. The ledger of course implements Ripple, and colored coins could do it too.
Would binding offers on the blockchain make colored coins based ripple non-scalable? I don't think so, just maybe a little bit more expensive than other solutions like out-of-the-chain "advertising". That would still be possible adding the new feature (hard fork required), but you're just allowing to intermediaries to participate on transactions when they're offline and can't sign.
But of course, if you make that hard fork you would directly eliminate the necessity of "tainted satoshis" and differentiate between btc and IOU from now on.
By the way, only a bit is necessary, I don't like those three letter codes on ripple's ledger. Want to issue two denominations? Create two addresses and connect them at the rate you prefer.
staff
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8808
March 05, 2013, 03:29:45 PM
#66
Oh, and a shared disadvantage of both colored coins and 2PR is that they can't publish binding offers. That's a disadvantage ripplecoin didn't had. Maybe colored coins usage ends up turning bitcoin into ripplecoin (or an equivalent) through a series of convenient and non-polemic hard forks, who knows.
I'm really doubtful there. Global blockchains to aggregate color coins has horrible scalability and is rife with cost externalization and commons risk.  I think schemes which do not require perpetual global consensus are more interesting especially in terms of things-that-add-to-the-bitcoin-ecosystem.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
February 28, 2013, 04:58:20 PM
#65
You can actually map the colored coins to Ripple IOUs, and trade IOUs inside Ripple to avoid horrendous blockchain bloat that is inevitable if colored coins pick up in any significant way. Colored coin issuers can serve as Ripple gateways themselves or delegate this function to specialized nodes (depositories) that manage multiple securities/issuers.

This is really exciting, a combination of Ripple and colored coins can be used to re-invent the whole financial system as we know it at a fraction of a cost.

Let's not forget other technologies and designs for "colorable cryptoassets".

Open Transactions (OT): my main objection to chaumian "cash" (apart from the badly chosen term "cash", for something that looks and cuacks like credit) is that it cannot be "rippled" in a transitive but atomic transaction, but as maaku proposed it can be implemented on top of a PoW chain and probably a ledger consensus system too and be more p2p. It has better privacy than colored coins and much better than Ripple's (is not free to cycle keypairs in the ledger). For me the non-ripplable flaw takes it out of the game, but many use cases (say stocks or bonds) don't really need that.

Two phase ripple protocol (2PR): it has good privacy too and can use both a blockchain or ledger to achieve atomicity. That's practically equivalent to hash non-public transactions into the tree, so I think the best option would be to directly integrate it in the ledger or the chain or both. Disadvantages: intermediaries must be online, which also kind of disqualifies it for some smart property use cases.
My wish is a ripple atomic transaction containing both pseudonymous and private IOU transfers, and I have a little draft for that: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rippleusers/05c9JlxCmXs/discussion

Oh, and a shared disadvantage of both colored coins and 2PR is that they can't publish binding offers. That's a disadvantage ripplecoin didn't had. Maybe colored coins usage ends up turning bitcoin into ripplecoin (or an equivalent) through a series of convenient and non-polemic hard forks, who knows.

Certainly any of these cryptoassets/ripple implementations has the potential to be highly disruptive, but we shouldn't discard the possibility of an ecosystem with several of them disrupting the financial/monetary system together.
It is good to have various bullets: resilience.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1031
Rational Exuberance
February 25, 2013, 05:20:50 PM
#64
Theoretically the same IOUs could be issued using colored Bitcoins, but then you're cramming a round peg into a square hole. Because Ripple is designed to do this, it has features that makes this not just possible but efficient. Colored coins are good for smart property, but I don't see how they get you things like payment paths and distributed exchanges.

The network just treats a currency as an opaque 160-bit number. A portion of that namespace is reserved for three-letter currency codes. The network itself has no list of valid codes, so if you want to use "XBL" for barrels of crude, you can. The client has a list of known currencies, but anyone can modify that list and we can add configurable currencies to store in the wallet if there's demand.

On our planned feature list is fully custom currencies. A custom currency would be created by someone and would have an entry in the ledger. Its currency code would be a hash that would allow the client to find its specification. Custom currencies could be associated with a particular web site and have custom display rules and so on. The feature set is not fully fleshed out yet as the only real use case we have to far as demurrage.


Regarding custom currencies: awesome! For me, that is the really attractive use case for something like Ripple.

Regarding colored coins: Forum user killerstorm has demonstrated atomic trades and proof-of-concept for distributed exchange of colored coins. Bitcoinx.org is (IMHO) your closest competition, so you would be wise to keep a close eye on what they are doing.

I am watching both your project and theirs with great interest. Keep up the good work!
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
February 25, 2013, 02:58:21 PM
#63
First, can you describe what benefits Ripple has over colored coins? The ripple client looks great, and is very easy to use, but couldn't the same IOUs be issued and traded using colored bitcoins?
Theoretically the same IOUs could be issued using colored Bitcoins, but then you're cramming a round peg into a square hole. Because Ripple is designed to do this, it has features that makes this not just possible but efficient. Colored coins are good for smart property, but I don't see how they get you things like payment paths and distributed exchanges.

Quote
Second, are you planning on support for IOUs denominated in user-specified units? For instance, could I use Ripple to release IOUs denominated in barrels of crude oil? Could I release IOUs denominated in future profits of a company (essentially a stock offering)?
The network just treats a currency as an opaque 160-bit number. A portion of that namespace is reserved for three-letter currency codes. The network itself has no list of valid codes, so if you want to use "XBL" for barrels of crude, you can. The client has a list of known currencies, but anyone can modify that list and we can add configurable currencies to store in the wallet if there's demand.

On our planned feature list is fully custom currencies. A custom currency would be created by someone and would have an entry in the ledger. Its currency code would be a hash that would allow the client to find its specification. Custom currencies could be associated with a particular web site and have custom display rules and so on. The feature set is not fully fleshed out yet as the only real use case we have to far as demurrage.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1031
Rational Exuberance
February 25, 2013, 01:51:59 PM
#62
Hey Joel,

Thanks for answering so many questions on this thread. I'm hoping you can answer a couple more:

First, can you describe what benefits Ripple has over colored coins? The ripple client looks great, and is very easy to use, but couldn't the same IOUs be issued and traded using colored bitcoins?

I've been watching the development of colored coins over at bitcoinx.org, as I consider trade in stable currencies to be a "the next big step" for distributed currency. Ripple seems to have some great momentum, so maybe you will stay ahead of colored coins just based on getting there first.

Second, are you planning on support for IOUs denominated in user-specified units? For instance, could I use Ripple to release IOUs denominated in barrels of crude oil? Could I release IOUs denominated in future profits of a company (essentially a stock offering)?

Thanks!
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
February 25, 2013, 12:57:09 PM
#61
That just makes claiming it is not a currency and warning people not to treat it as one make all the more sense.

Do you have democracy in your country?

If so, what measures are in place to ensure that there is a viable market, without crashes, for votes, so speculators buying votes are ensured the price won't crash out from under them?

Just curious... Smiley

-MarkM-
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
February 25, 2013, 12:25:43 PM
#60
Maybe they can manipulate or crash the XRP market. Who cares? That will only affect people who transact in XRP, not those who transact in other currencies.  And the ability to transact in arbitrary currencies is the main selling point of Ripple. The XRP are just an auxiliary tool.
 

In fact, not only *can* they crash the XRP market, they will, repeatedly. As long as the giveaways continue happening, XRP will be seriously hampered as a store of value. This is one of the reasons the pre-issue doesn't bother me too much: unless they're lying about how they plan to distribute XRP, it will be difficult for them to make much money by cashing out. Their stated intentions – making Ripple free to use as long as possible for as many people as possible – are incompatible with making a quick buck off of the pre-issued XRP.

Not only will the XRP market crash each time there is another dump/giveaway/massive sale by the founders, they have also explicitly stated that the reserve requirements and transaction fees may be lowered in the future, and each time these are lowered the price will drop as well.
newbie
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
February 25, 2013, 09:20:16 AM
#59
I still wouldn't mind seeing an implementation of Laurie's (et al.) scheme of instantly (well, within seconds) confirming transactions via a distributed authority. Bitcoin may need that anyway, in one form or another.

Still would take on the order of a year of development to do everything right, of course. But, if you really do not like Ripple, there are things you can do about it other than complain.
member
Activity: 97
Merit: 10
February 25, 2013, 08:46:47 AM
#58
In fact, not only *can* they crash the XRP market, they will, repeatedly. As long as the giveaways continue happening, XRP will be seriously hampered as a store of value. This is one of the reasons the pre-issue doesn't bother me too much: unless they're lying about how they plan to distribute XRP, it will be difficult for them to make much money by cashing out. Their stated intentions – making Ripple free to use as long as possible for as many people as possible – are incompatible with making a quick buck off of the pre-issued XRP.

Yes, precisely. That's why I'm wide eyed at some people paying up to 4 BTC for 50kXRP.

The purpose of XRPs is not to become a store of value. It's purpose is to work as an anti-spam fee token to make it more difficult to spam the network. Thus, they need to be cheap enough for pretty much anyone to be able to afford to make an account. Giving them out for free helps this as well as keeping a big portion of them for themselves, that keeps speculators in check somewhat (well ok, not the stupid ones)
member
Activity: 79
Merit: 10
February 25, 2013, 07:42:06 AM
#57
Maybe they can manipulate or crash the XRP market. Who cares? That will only affect people who transact in XRP, not those who transact in other currencies.  And the ability to transact in arbitrary currencies is the main selling point of Ripple. The XRP are just an auxiliary tool.
 

In fact, not only *can* they crash the XRP market, they will, repeatedly. As long as the giveaways continue happening, XRP will be seriously hampered as a store of value. This is one of the reasons the pre-issue doesn't bother me too much: unless they're lying about how they plan to distribute XRP, it will be difficult for them to make much money by cashing out. Their stated intentions – making Ripple free to use as long as possible for as many people as possible – are incompatible with making a quick buck off of the pre-issued XRP.
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1001
bitcoin - the aerogel of money
February 25, 2013, 07:16:19 AM
#56
[...]
Now, I indeed remember the original ripple web-of-trust proposal being as gmaxwell described. The "new" system seems to be something else, and I echo people's concerns expressed in this thread and do not see how they have been resolved to any satisfaction. It may be unintentional on the part of the ripple developers, but something seems fishy or opaque about it (at least at this point in time), and it looks like a commercial rather than a community project.

To me, it looks like it is both a commercial and community project.  Is that a paradox? Not necessarily.

It looks like the pre-mined pre-issued XRP are a way for the developers/founders to monetize their work.  That's fair enough in my opinion, even though they overdid it by keeping such a large share.

I too would have preferred a "pure" community project, but the commercial element won't stop me from using Ripple.

I'm happy that someone is working hard at making this idea happen.  At least the XRP pre-issuing is giving the developers a motivation to keep working at it.  I prefer an imperfect Ripple that actually happens in the real world than a perfect, idealistic Ripple that languishes as an idea on a mailing list for 10 years. 

All this discussion about the XRP price is petty.  Speculators are gonna speculate.  There isn't much anyone can do about that in a free market, not even the Ripple founders.  Who cares if there is hoarding of XRP? Who cares if there are XRP bubbles?

It terms of Ripple functionality, none of that matters. Neither does it matter that a single entity holds 80% of XRP.  That does not make them a "central bank".  Even if OpenCoin held 99% of XRP, once Ripple transitions to a community project, this will not allow them to "buy" consensus or to block certain transactions.  Maybe they can manipulate or crash the XRP market. Who cares? That will only affect people who transact in XRP, not those who transact in other currencies.  And the ability to transact in arbitrary currencies is the main selling point of Ripple. The XRP are just an auxiliary tool.
 
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
February 25, 2013, 01:12:28 AM
#55
Suppose my idea of imagining Ripples as if they are more like community shares than a community currency per se of a more normal (un-sharelike) type.

Suppose the SEC and other branches of Big Brother have not made any ruling that "community shares" are some kind of "exemption" from rules and regulations applicable to "corporate shares".

Suppose people are already in danger of predatory speculators / Uranian mafia / Ferrengi relieving them of their birthright for a mess of pottage.

What do you say/write?

a) If you are an "insider"?

b) If you are a deniable asset of the Martian Intelligence 5ervice based out of the city MI-5ius of the planet known as M5?

c) Other?

-MarkM-
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: 1pirata
February 24, 2013, 07:32:21 PM
#54
So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?
Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

Is this a joke? lol
Say, hypothetically, you were the president of a publicly-traded company and you were about to announce a major new product that would likely result in an increase in your company's stock price. Or maybe you're not about to introduce a major new product but people are expecting you to. Or may you know your company is being investigated by the FBI for importing lobsters illegally (50 CFR 640.27). And say someone on a forum asks you, "So, what up with your company?" What do you do?

Way to give a straight answer to the question at hand... running around in circles. I will just leave this here

http://www.rugatu.com/questions/6452/what-is-ripple
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
February 24, 2013, 06:39:30 PM
#53
So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?
Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

Is this a joke? lol
Say, hypothetically, you were the president of a publicly-traded company and you were about to announce a major new product that would likely result in an increase in your company's stock price. Or maybe you're not about to introduce a major new product but people are expecting you to. Or may you know your company is being investigated by the FBI for importing lobsters illegally (50 CFR 640.27). And say someone on a forum asks you, "So, what up with your company?" What do you do?
newbie
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
February 24, 2013, 06:27:23 PM
#52
So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?
Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

Is this a joke? lol
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
February 24, 2013, 05:23:07 PM
#51
So many text here  Grin

Even some aspects of bitcoin are quite a bit over my head, ripple is just too complex for me to understand Grin
Pages:
Jump to: