And I can't see how any amount of 'passive mode' could really help there, except perhaps by making sure the sequence number cranks only in one direction, but someone could still fail to include a newer one
Yeah, but then at least you'd know about it in advance, before the transaction was locked. |
|
|
|
I don't really see the benefit of having a strictly local client though, there is nearly no computation done besides signing of transactions locally and browsers are easily fast enough to handle that.
It gives better security, because you know you aren't running hijacked Javascript. Assuming you didn't download hijacked Javascript to begin with... |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how you could ever rely on a newer transaction overriding an older one unless unlocked transactions make it into the blockchain in a "passive mode".
|
|
|
|
Right now as a system, bitcoin is better because it is accepted by more merchants and has been around longer and despite its flaws is trusted better.
Right now Ripple and Bitcoin are complementary and synergistic. Ripple could gain users by offering a distributed Bitcoin exchange, and this in turn would help Bitcoin adoption. In the longer term, XRP could become a rival to BTC, but at the same time greater adoption could help the Bitcoin ecosystem finance rival Bitcoin-based distributed exchanges. |
|
|
|
Yes, this has been addressed, new trust lines are created with the "No Rippling" flag enabled by default in the official client
Speaking of which, do you know why the meaning of the no rippling flag was changed? Previously it meant "don't ripple out through this line", but now it means "don't ripple out through this line from another line with the flag set or vice versa". |
|
|
|
Exactly, part of the strength of bitcoin is fungibility. So long as gateways are limited to banks then we would expect to see fungibility of dollar IOUs unless there is a potential run on the bank, but the dream of anyone becoming a gateway isn't feasible because the trust level of each gateway is not the same
Apart from the fact that you are making the category error of comparing rippling to bitcoin, it isn't even true that the ideal is that IOUs issued by different users should be fungible. The trust system exists precisely because they fundamentally cannot be fungible any more than bonds issued by corporation X and bonds issued by corporation Y are fungible. Ripple distinguishes between issuers precisely because the counterparty risk isn't identical. In addition, counterparty risk is a function of both the issuer and the holder, a function of their real world relationship. People are much more likely to default on obligations to anonymous strangers than on those to close associates. |
|
|
|
the fundamental question of how does a halawa network work on a global scale. If it does ripple or a competitor will succeed, but I don't think it does
Ripple is the combination of a cryptocurrency (XRP) + a digital hawala system (rippling) + a distributed exchange. It makes no sense to compare rippling to BTC, the right comparison is XRP to BTC and rippling + exchange to Bitcoin exchanges. And it so happens that the largest exchange, Bitstamp, also is a Ripple gateway, so the two systems are intertwined already. |
|
|
|
Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs. So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable. It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.
That's exactly what the trust relation is for. Do not tell Ripple to trust people that you don't actually trust. Similarly, don't store money at exchanges you don't trust. The only difference is that Ripple explictly talks about trust and IOUs, while exchanges typically pretend their IOUs are real dollars. There is exactly the same kind of counterparty risk as with Ripple. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. |
|
|
|
XRP and bitcoins compete. Ripple and Bitcoin require a more elaborate analysis to substantiate that claim
Yes, but Ripple is much more than XRP, it also includes the IOU rippling mechanism and a distributed exchange. And these aren't just any two merely nice additions, they deal directly with Bitcoin's major weakness, its interface with the fiat world. That won't matter eventually in an all-crypto world, but we have to get there first, and that's where Ripple or something like it can help. If Ripple didn't have these additional parts, it would be much less interesting. |
|
|
|
I know how you feel but your post was unhelpful, NWO. Bitcoiners are a natural ally to the Ripple ecosystem, though and we can't forget that.
Sure, but judging by some of the juvenile responses on this thread, I think many of the critics are just kids. |
|
|
|
I hope that Ripple can become the big actor in china when those centralized exchanges were shutdown by governments, but I'm afraid that their gateway will also be shutdown following such kind of ban, it seems localbitcoins has better future
It would be perfect for that because of its support for rippling fiat payments through the trust graph. On the other hand the trust graph also makes it easier to break anonymity. So if Ripple is wildly successful in China, it could help the Chinese government to go after individual users. |
|
|
|
They gave their bitcoin to Havelock, an unlicenced Panamanian exchange.
Unlicensed under US law you mean? I thought they did have a Panamanian license. |
|
|
|
what is good about ripple? why would i use it?  Depends on where you're coming from. If you're a bitcoin user, its main benefit is as a distributed fiat / crypto exchange system. In the future, given enough adoption, it can also function as a Bitpay + reverse Bitpay system. |
|
|
|
Fortunately we can have both. It is not a zero-sum game: one person taking ripple seriously does not imply one fewer person taking bitcoin seriously.
Sure, they can coexist, and that wouldn't be a bad thing, since consumer choice is a good thing. |
|
|
|
XRP stripped off the fundamental technologies that makes bitcoin actually work. Controlling the value of a XRP is centralized and entirely in someone else hands, and so is the XRP themself.
Neither does it have the incentive to stay decentralized built into it the way bitcoin does.
I will continue to claim this for as long as people think they are comparable.
Then you will continue to show your ignorance. |
|
|
|
Is it possible that Bitcoins are the store of wealth (gold) whereas Ripples or NXT will be the more commonly used everyday exchanged digital currency? Just a thought.
Possible, but not likely, since if Ripple takes off, XRP (ripples) will become viable as a store of value too. What does seem likely is that Bitcoin will evolve to support some sort of rippling mechanism. Both Ripple and Bitcoin will also likely adopt innovations from Zerocoin/Zerocash and future alt-coins if they are successful. |
|
|
|
yeah, don't forget he filed for change of CEO without telling anyone, 3 weeks ago.
Maybe it wasn't a change of CEO, but a change of the CEO's home address, with the new address being in the UK. |
|
|
|
Danny is MIA
AWOL more like. |
|
|
|
|
Where I live the company can file for bankruptcy on its own, or else any creditor who can prove there are multiple unpaid creditors can ask the court to initiate insolvency proceedings. I assume that's the general procedure elsewhere too.
|
|
|
|
Odd question: Why was trading resumed? Who authorised it? Presumably not Danny, right? TAT quit, who else had the authority?
There's an update on the Havelock page for Neo & Bee: On March 28, 2014 Havelock Investments halted trading of the NEOBEE Fund; Havelock Investments has yet to receive any formal information in regards to the questionable trading activity on the LMB share platform website. We have not received any formal information on the current situation at LMB Holdings. Due to those factors we have decided that the unit holders on the NEOBEE Fund should no longer be suspended from trading their units. The Fund will now be designated as NEOBEEQ to reflect the uncertainty of the future of LMB Holdings – NEO BEE Ltd. Financial information on the status of the company has not been released. The units of this Fund will continue to trade even if the company will file for bankruptcy. We will continue to update you if any information is provided to us.
Trading will resume today at 5:00 PM EST emphasis added |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
