|
A bit off-topic, sorry OP. But I always wonder why can't merchants just reject/put on hold transactions from addresses with still unconfirmed transactions to prevent race-attacks? Should be a fair request with a deterministic wallet as it's recommended to use every address only once.
|
|
|
|
My opinion on Ripple is that it's not needed. When you lend bitcoins or fiat, you are also creating debt out of thin air, and when the debt is repaid, it vanishes. Sure a system that allows you to lend/borrow bitcoins based on reputation might have it's use but such system does not need it's own kind of currency like ripple. The market value of ripples is crashing and for good reason I believe. Litecoin shares the same faith in my opinion. I remember a book I read at the time from Sony or Philips and there the mantra is, a new technology needs to have at least 7 big innovations for it to have a chance to succeed. Bitcoin has that over fiat and gold, Litecoin does not have that over bitcoin. Litecoin is a copycat with very few innovations over bitcoin. In a network environment where the value comes from the amount of participants, copycats do not have a chance.
From an investor's perspective the altcoins are like low end real estate. In a real estate boom it goes up even more than quality real estate, but it loses much more value when the inevitable crash comes. And chances are there that it will never recover but will be bulldozered down, as no one needs it anymore. Whereas the quality real estate, although highly undervalued, will continue to stand as there continues to be a need for it. I might be totally wrong so counterarguments are very welcome.
Ps: Also note that the analogy made for litecoin that it is silver versus bitcoin gold is not valid. When gold was money, there was not enough of it, so silver was also used as money. There are enough bitcoins to serve the whole world.
This is the altcoin subforum so I am not expecting balanced opinions on replies, but I want to expound a bit on the "copycats do not have a chance" thing. The way I look at it is, that the digital currency world is actually much more cruel than that of PMs， as there is an inherent risk associated with copying Bitcoin's model of blockchain-you need to survive at the mercy of the Bitcoin network, some Bitcoiners can conduct a 51% attack on your network either with their big GPU farms or through botnets if they really feel the need to protect their stash, the most powerful network always wins, and the smaller ones could fail because no one will be interested in a unusable network. As for Ripple, it's essentially a centralized network, and if I want to process my transaction centrally, I would rather go to some certified pros to do it in a legally enforceable way. |
|
|
|
I made my statement based on my careful study of Ripple's so-called wiki which looks like a graffiti by teenagers, now your turn to answer my question in the first sentence.
Somehow I think no amount of rational argument will change your hate-based position. If you had really studied the "graffiti-by-teenagers" wiki, I wouldn't have to tell you the advantages over both banks and bitcoin. So I don't see any further point of talking to you. Yeah, the " if you don't know go read a book" argument always wins, no surprise here. Even let's suppose I were full of hatred towards Ripple, the supposed "rational argument" you post can at least educate some readers without hate-based opinion, as my question is still valid, you can answer it without convincing me. |
|
|
|
You're nit-picking my words out of context, read what I wrote again.
I wrote what about SWIFT as an example of successful system based on cooperation and you wrote that banks sucks, so no, can't take this system as an example. How is that nit-picking or taking words out of context? The essence is the banking system at least sucks in some aspects,
No arguing there. Everything sucks in some aspects... otherwise Bitcoin would not have been attractive, it has to do certain things many times better to mitigate the sunk costs. Unlike Ripple, which basically tries to go to the bank's home court and play by their rules and hope to win, hmmm....
You are arguing out of your own ignorance. Ripple has even more advantages than Bitcoin, if only you take time to actually study how it works, instead of simply dismissing it based on hate that developers will get some money for their hard work... You still failed to tell me what advantages does it have over the banking network to justify the transition? If I were to process my transactions centrally I would rather go to some certified professionals rather than some random validators over the internet who are potentially not subjected to any regulation. Don't even compare with Bitcoin in terms of advantages, if you think a centralized system and a decentralized system can be comparable that way you are talking out of your ignorance-Ripple can only be thus compared with a centralized system like the banks. I made my statement based on my careful study of Ripple's so-called wiki which looks like a graffiti by teenagers, now your turn to answer my question in the first sentence. |
|
|
|
The problem is will there ever be one day the system works well
Well, unless somebody has a crystal ball, nobody knows. We can speculate, but what will actually happen can only be know once it actually happens  Exactly what I meant, banks/clearing houses suck, that's why Bitcoin was created. And you want to reinvent the wheel by replicating what the banking system has done, good luck with that.
You are like a teenage girl at the Occupy Wall Street - shaking here iPhone in anger and shouting how corporations suck. Do you have any idea how much your life is better because of banks? And to just dismiss them as "banks suck"? What kind of naive "argument" is that? You're nit-picking my words out of context, read what I wrote again. The essence is the banking system at least sucks in some aspects, otherwise Bitcoin would not have been attractive, it has to do certain things many times better to mitigate the sunk costs. Unlike Ripple, which basically tries to go to the bank's home court and play by their rules and hope to win, hmmm.... EDIT: Oh, I forgot, there is one difference between the Ripple and the banking network-your Ripple transaction "contract" is not legally enforceable. |
|
|
|
Satoshi has no capability to create a potentially unlimited amount of bitcoins out of thin air, opencoin, otoh.........
Once the system is distributed they will have no such special powers either. No technical guarantee. |
|
|
|
Seems to me Ripple's greatest weakness is it can be so easily forked.
They do have a hefty head start and other advantages. And they rely on a simple fact that once the system is working well, it's much better to join and rip the benefits, rather than compete. The problem is will there ever be one day the system works well What about SWIFT? Several bunches of non-colluding banks in different countries cooperate to process transactions Exactly what I meant, banks/clearing houses suck, that's why Bitcoin was created. And you want to reinvent the wheel by replicating what the banking system has done, playing on their home court, good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Ripple promoters are basically acting as slave labor on behalf of OpenCoin for a paltry sum of XRP. There are more kids looking to get rich quick than brains in the cryptocurrency community.
That is very presumptuous. Satohi does hold a hell of lot of bitcoins, doesn't he? How OpenCoin's holdings are different? They maybe waiting to open source to help them secure leadership, but so what? Do you want them instead to work hard and write a complex system and then give it to you for free before themselves? So you can then beat them as a competitor and they are left with nothing? What a nice present that would be. They work hard, they get rich. Seems fair to me. Satoshi has no capability to create a potentially unlimited amount of bitcoins out of thin air, opencoin, otoh......... |
|
|
|
|
Seems to me Ripple's greatest weakness is it can be so easily forked. They count on several bunches of non-colluding validators to cooperate to process the transactions, in the real world things never work that way...
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the loud voices are big into litecoin when litecoin's current anti-dust relay/mining policy is far more aggressive than anything proposed for Bitcoin. Litecoin, showing Bitcoin how it should be done yet again. Please don't tell me you are serious. Go look at the current codebase. Current? What are you talking about? Last real update was 10 months ago.  Now seriously, I think litecoin is more or less how an altcoin should be done, but not what Bitcoin should have been done. Bitcoin is litecoins test coin. Litecoin will not get forked and break like bitcoin did. Litecoin is the conservitive option here. Explain "will not get forked and break" LTC network at its current stage is still very much susceptible to a botnet 51% attack, so it can not become the No.1 virtual currency, there are plenty with millions of CPUs out there, they just don't care enough about LTC yet. When bitcoin was forked it was not cuz of an attack but design fail. Litecoin does not have this bad code. The bitcoin coders did something silly and almost killed bitcoin. Glad we still have safe ltc so we can use crypto. Perhaps you should go ask coblee if he likes your vision about LTC. Sooner or later they will start forking from bitcoin-0.8.  And if what you said were true, that would exactly be the reason why LTC can only be No.2-it's designed to only satisfy the need of old users. Ltc is silver to btcs gold. But it is the more stable and tested coin. Honestly i hold and use both. We need both. If it stays silver I think it will be OK. But if it attempts usurpation I don't think many Bitcoiners and their huge GPU mining farms will go easy on the LTC network. I invest in LTC as well. |
|
|
|
https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus According to Ripple wiki, this is how they are going to validate a transaction: by trusting a set of validators which are not supposed to collude. If everyone chooses a completely disparate sets of validators the network will be unlikely to reach consensus that a particular version of the ledger is the one true and accurate ledger. But, in practice, people's UNL lists will overlap. This overlap causes the honest validators to come to the same consensus.
This is exactly what I would consider to be a proposal of centralization, in the real world government was usually formed with someone trusted by all closely-knitted groups. IMHO they simply fail to understand Byzantine Generals problem, Bitcoin works because a miner/validator doesn't know if/when he will come out first in the mining competition so a transaction cannot be maliciously rejected for long unless the malicious actor controls more than 51% of the network hashpower. The Ripple network, otoh, could split easily if two bunches of validators disagree about if a transaction is to be accepted and go political.
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the loud voices are big into litecoin when litecoin's current anti-dust relay/mining policy is far more aggressive than anything proposed for Bitcoin. Litecoin, showing Bitcoin how it should be done yet again. Please don't tell me you are serious. Go look at the current codebase. Current? What are you talking about? Last real update was 10 months ago. Now seriously, I think litecoin is more or less how an altcoin should be done, but not what Bitcoin should have been done. Bitcoin is litecoins test coin. Litecoin will not get forked and break like bitcoin did. Litecoin is the conservitive option here. Explain "will not get forked and break" LTC network at its current stage is still very much susceptible to a botnet 51% attack, so it can not become the No.1 virtual currency, there are plenty with millions of CPUs out there, they just don't care enough about LTC yet. When bitcoin was forked it was not cuz of an attack but design fail. Litecoin does not have this bad code. The bitcoin coders did something silly and almost killed bitcoin. Glad we still have safe ltc so we can use crypto. Perhaps you should go ask coblee if he likes your vision about LTC. Sooner or later they will start forking from bitcoin-0.8. And if what you said were true, that would exactly be the reason why LTC can only be No.2-it's designed to only satisfy the need of old users. |
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the loud voices are big into litecoin when litecoin's current anti-dust relay/mining policy is far more aggressive than anything proposed for Bitcoin. Litecoin, showing Bitcoin how it should be done yet again. Please don't tell me you are serious. Go look at the current codebase. Current? What are you talking about? Last real update was 10 months ago. Now seriously, I think litecoin is more or less how an altcoin should be done, but not what Bitcoin should have been done. Bitcoin is litecoins test coin. Litecoin will not get forked and break like bitcoin did. Litecoin is the conservitive option here. Explain "will not get forked and break" LTC network at its current stage is still very much susceptible to a botnet 51% attack, so it can not become the No.1 virtual currency, there are plenty with millions of CPUs out there, they just don't care enough about LTC yet. |
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the loud voices are big into litecoin when litecoin's current anti-dust relay/mining policy is far more aggressive than anything proposed for Bitcoin. Litecoin, showing Bitcoin how it should be done yet again. Please don't tell me you are serious. Go look at the current codebase. Current? What are you talking about? Last real update was 10 months ago. Now seriously, I think litecoin is more or less how an altcoin should be done, but not what Bitcoin should have been done. |
|
|
|
Ok.. I'd say we're definitely in a decent low-orbit around the home planet at these prices. Now we're just hanging about getting re-fueled for the next stage of the journey. Moonshot is $1K but hey it's a big universe - I hope to see this thread resurrected for the 'out of the solar system' rocket and the 'out of the galaxy' shot The great necromancy rocket will be sent out of the solar system with the magic power generated from thousands of reanimated undead bears. |
|
|
|
It says "last updated <7 hours ago" at the bottom. 7 hours ago would be ~7am in China Check out the number of the previous three days, espeically that of the top 2 nations in the geo-rank, and you will have an idea. FYI: the program was aired on 2013-05-03. |
|
|
|
BTW: If miners install the current dev team's client like you said it's essentially a vote of confidence, so what's that taking power out you talked about?
No if most of the miners want that, then that is bitcoin working correctly but it is censorship and I can't allow that. No, whatever you do with the transaction limit in your client, your client will still remain interoperable with other clients, no hard fork is ever required. And your usage of "censorship" is ridiculous, if you can still read a book it's not censorship, what you want is everyone should read your book if you pass it to them. |
|
|
|
Especially given that this is something which only takes a few lines of change to be undone, the kind of whining around here probably says a lot more about the whiners rather than the developers, that they may not really care about the well-being of the network but want to spread FUDs instead.
I dont know... It's been interesting to watch this unfold. I think it says more about the new reality of a reddit sub with 40,000 members and how the development team communicates changes to the community. The reality is a base level of understanding is required to comprehend the changes being made, and without that base level it's very easy to jump to incorrect conclusions. You need to manage to understand everything about something if you want you use it in the perfectly trustless way, or you will need to trust someone to do that for you, like the dev team. If the developers have to spend a lot of their time convincing people about their decisions, then they essentially become politicians. Miners must make decisions for themselves, rather than listening to developers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
