Sure they can. They just are not.
Not without destroying their business model. They can promise it will be open until they are blue in the face, until it actually is open, I have no reason to trust them and many reasons not to.
No, you have many reasons to badmouth them and to keep your real reasons to yourself. |
|
|
|
Miners are in it for their own interests but the development team is about the code and the success of the project.
The Ripple developers have a clause in their contract that requires the code to be open-sourced if OpenCoin is shut down. You are drawing a false distinction between the Ripple and Bitcoin developers. It wouldn't surprise me if Satoshi were part of the Ripple team, or, if Satoshi is really a group of people, if some of them now worked for OpenCoin. |
|
|
|
Open source it and we can both look for patent violations and workarounds if/when they are found.
That was the plan all along, but as I explained they can't do it too soon. If it isn't open sourced it will either fail to be adopted by the market, or it will be shut down by the USG. They don't have the luxury of keeping it closed indefinitely, the clock is ticking. But at the same time, they don't have the luxury of open sourcing it now either. |
|
|
|
Forks generally only work if they are better, have something legitimate to offer.
A fork now could start a new ledger without most of the XRP going to OpenCoin, which would destroy their business model. Bad for OpenCoin, potentially good for the rest of the world. But it is undoubtedly self interest that is keeping it closed. Hence why I have no interest in their offering.
By that reasoning you should have no interest in Bitcoin either, since miners are in it for their own interests too. |
|
|
|
Ripple doesn’t compete with Bitcoin as much as it does with existing centralized-currencies and transaction systems.
It does both, it has its own cryptocurrency too, XRP, which competes with Bitcoin, which is the real reason people here don't like it. However, I think Ripple is making the wrong moves to be taken seriously. And OpenTransactions project is doing a better job at solving the issue.
OT is a good idea that is complementary to both Bitcoin and Ripple. It is less decentralised than both though. |
|
|
|
Why don't the developers want to open source it? What's their motive?
If they release it now, then people will fork it, OpenCoin's holdings of XRP will become worthless and their business model will collapse. It will also make it more difficult to get a consensus on necessary changes to the protocol. On the other hand, if they wait too long, then adoption may be hindered by a lack of trust and they run the risk of being shut down by the USG before the system (including the initial ledger with OpenCoin holding all of the XRP) can stand on its own. It's a difficult trade-off. |
|
|
|
|
I find it telling that so many people are so eager to profess their distrust. It would seem more logical to express both interest in the concept and hope it will be open-sourced, perhaps with a willingness to contribute to something similar if it isn't. The fact that that's not happening suggests that people are deliberately bad-mouthing Ripple without wanting to admit it.
|
|
|
|
Supposedly they have designed it in such a way that a number of servers can be run, making it somewhat decentralized, thus avoiding the fate of the old centralized failures.
It is currently somewhat decentralised, and if they release the source code, it will be just as decentralised as Bitcoin. In addition it will offer much improved fiat <-> crypto interface for all cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I'm undecided, but I'm also worried about the impact on the use of coloured coins.
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, anyone surprised that Satoshi never shows up anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
It's not necessary to prevent ASICs from doing the PoW faster than CPUs / GPUs, just to make sure they don't have more power than the huge installed based of computers bought for other purposes.
|
|
|
|
Can the exchange tell that these coins are coming from the Atlantis.
They could in theory if the money came from a known address. And the authorities could do so at any time in the future if they manage to raid the marketplace and recover server logs. |
|
|
|
However again that is not a good ASIC-hard direction because the SIMD nature of AMD GPUs is overcomeable eg http://www.adapteva.com with a MIMD (ie no SIMD restrictions) 28nm 64 core risc CPU and plans for 1024 even 4096 risc cores per chip. And they are low energy too. On the up side, they are still general purpose hardware. It might be good to have a set of algorithms, so that each class of PoW hardware has at least one it excels at. |
|
|
|
As you say, it's a dispute resolution mechanism.
Sure, and I think it's possible we'll see a combination of a number of mechanisms: ASIC-unfriendly hashing functions, alternative proof of work schemes, proof of stake, proof of burn. |
|
|
|
|
Voting has its own risks. After all, democracy is the original 51% attack, as Erik Voorhees puts it so nicely. Before you know it, we might have Bitcoin taxes. Still, it's possible some less drastic dispute resolution mechanism than forking Bitcoin or switching to a rival currency will emerge. It's certainly interesting to speculate about the possibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Would there be a useful way to combine the two?
|
|
|
|
More than half. It will take years potentially if bitcoin's price continues to raise regularly, but I will keep my word because despite the misconception by those who think a manic episode equates to being a scammer, I am probably one of the most honest people on these forums (key point: I correct myself when wrong, apologize when wrong, and make up for my mistakes. I do not start fraudulent funds and pass them off as charities to avoid paying what I owe).
Commendable. Under Dutch law (and maybe in all civil law jurisdictions) debts arising from bets are not enforceable, they constitute what are called "natural obligations". While if someone does pay, he cannot later ask for his money back, he cannot be forced to pay. Disclaimer: IANAL, TINLA. |
|
|
|
|
Exactly, and I suspect the price of a one month lease wouldn't fluctuate as wildly as BTC. A basket of digital goods could probably do even better. It wouldn't track any particular currency, but it should be relatively stable in the short term in terms of purchasing power. Essentially, it would be like a digital services commodity.
|
|
|
|
you cannot 'price fix' things and this system would not track the price of dollars or any fiat.
Why not? Why couldn't you fix the fee at 1 NMC for a lease of a month, with all fees being destroyed? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
