|
"with regulation, Bitcoin will become the currency of choice"?
|
|
|
|
You're correct that, if they built trust, this would create a temporary denial of service attack. But their bad behavior would be obvious and provable, so people would just stop trusting them. Given that the effort to do this is so great and the payoff so small, it seems unlikely anyone will bother. You're correct that Ripple is more vulnerable earlier on.
but in a monetary system you can't afford to have any mistakes in trust at all or otherwise ppl lose money. and potentially lots. we had a near escape from the 0.7 to 0.8 upgrade. based on what you've said, i see no reason why banks would want to play along with Ripple. why would they cede control of their fate from the Fed, who is in their pockets, to OpenCoin an unknown small new entrant? |
|
|
|
This is the holy grail, for me at least, because then I don't care if Amazon accepts Bitcoins or uses Ripple, I can just pay them using my debit card like normal except that the money will come from a just-in-time sale of Bitcoins on the distributed Ripple exchange.
you know you can buy from Amazon right now with Bitcoin using Bitcoin Spinner and Gyft Card apps installed on your Android? |
|
|
|
I think if you still need to select several third-parties to decide which one of the two transactions invloved in a double-spend is valid, it's essentially a "commander and lieutenant" solution to Byzantine Generals problem.  You go with the transaction that's in the consensus ledger or one of its prior ledgers. If there isn't a consensus ledger, you deem the network fatally broken and don't trust any transaction. so is it right to conceptualize the entire Ripple system as a replication of the existing banking system with it being likely that banks will act as gateways (and possibly as validators) doing the issuing and redeeming of XRP's (IOU's) except somehow with a p2p aspect layered in btwn individual ppl and open ledgers?
That's a stage it might go through, though I can't imagine that as the end game. On the bright side, if that does happen, payments will be faster, cheaper, and much less subject to arbitrary policies than they are now. People will be able to hold the currency of their choice, so you can get paid in dollars but hold gold, only to sell it right as you buy groceries. so what if an attacker early on in the Ripple system's evolution decides to create a 51% alternative reality ledger to disrupt the consensus? not too hard given there is no proof of work security system in place. |
|
|
|
|
finally.
the Silicoin Valley guys are starting to get it.
this is going to be fun.
|
|
|
|
Whether or not Bitcoin is the "winner" it has several qualities that are going to be important for "Currency 2.0":
It is encrypted, making all transactions secure and private. A feature our banking system does not have.
No respect for Mr. James Altucher for spreading Bitcoin myths around. He probably has no clue at all that all Bitcoin transactions are in the open shared in a P2P network. He probably also doesn't know that only Digital Signatures. If the interviewer asked what a digital signature is he probably would answer "Sorry? What is a digital signature?" did you read the article? he sounds pretty knowledgeable about Bitcoin. he's even into Litecoin.  |
|
|
|
I believe that the premise behind a gateway is that it has to be a highly visible, reputable organization that is accountable to the a corresponding legal system. For example, a bank. OpenCoin is very clear to point out that gateways have to comply with all regulations such as Know Your Customer and the like.
A gateway operating anonymously would be quite risky.
who would be validators? Validators validate the entire ledger. It's not per gateway or anything like that. Gateways are only special in the sense that they offer issue and redeem agreements to the general public. They may tend to run validators, but they don't have to, and using them as a validator and using them as a gateway have nothing to do with each other. so is it right to conceptualize the entire Ripple system as a replication of the existing banking system with it being likely that banks will act as gateways (and possibly as validators) doing the issuing and redeeming of XRP's (IOU's) except somehow with a p2p aspect layered in btwn individual ppl and open ledgers? |
|
|
|
|
haha. i wasn't going to read this article b/c its sounded boring.
then i did and realized who that James Althucher is/was. i remember him being trotted out on CNBS constantly in 2007-08 as a relentless stock bull. he has this crazy, geeky, uberbullish way of talking that makes you want to throw up.
the fact that he is now a Bitcoin convert and acknowledges gov't/Fed manipulation of markets via money printing and advises against day trading is significant. sounds like he had some rough times as a result of his perma-bullishness so maybe Bitcoin has shown him the light.
glad to know we have another convert.
|
|
|
|
So, if really China wants to hurt USA and it has just to dump his trillions, and that could trash the dollar overnight.
Yes, but that would be a severe form of self immolation. Step two would be to slowly sell them off as might be starting to occur now according to Bill Gross, while at the same time pursuing the dual strategy of gold and Bitcoin accumulation.
I'm not sure I understand this logic, can you please elaborate? This is my reasoning, please point me the flaws: case 1) China is holding trillions of dollars: if it sells them they become less valuable and conversely the Yen appreciates. When they have sold all of them they have a reserve of strong currency and no reserve of unuseful dollars case 2) China buys bitcoins and/or gold so that the game of (gold) price suppression come to an end. PM and Bitcoin values soars, the dollar crashes. China is left with trillion of worthless dollars. Why case #2 should be better than #1? most of china's usd have been recycled back to the usa and converted into ust's: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txtany hint of a selloff on their part would cause interest rates to spike and they could suffer severe losses on their remaining portfolio. we know they've already stopped buying to a significant degree. if they want to decrease their exposure and undermine the USD world reserve currency status, as it seems they would very much like to do, the 2 pronged attack i outlined above would make sense. 1. sell ust's slowly. 2. accumulate gold and Bitcoin. we have hints that this is exactly what they are doing. |
|
|
|
I believe that the premise behind a gateway is that it has to be a highly visible, reputable organization that is accountable to the a corresponding legal system. For example, a bank. OpenCoin is very clear to point out that gateways have to comply with all regulations such as Know Your Customer and the like.
A gateway operating anonymously would be quite risky.
who would be validators? |
|
|
|
wrong address. mtgox is https |
|
|
|
I need to trust no one to use a SR type business. By "SR" do you mean "Silk Road?" You do realize that you have to trust Silk Road with your Bitcoins...both as a buyer and as a seller. Silk Road is a perfect example of centralization! LOL c'mon. you know what he's talking about. we're not talking about centralized businesses surrounding the Bitcoin or Ripple network which clearly can be shut down (altho its questionable if SR falls into this category). we're talking about the Ripple network itself, ie, gateways and validators which are centralized, and can be shutdown. |
|
|
|
|
just goes to show you how many countries are looking into Bitcoin.
the first country to pull the trigger could likely become the next powerhouse in finance and industry.
|
|
|
|
why you think there is a consensus mechanism that actually carries weight in a decision making process moreso than just being able to view balances and transactions on a gateways ledger (which i think is a long shot feature especially if we're talking about banks). Each validator signs the consensus ledger each time a new one is created. So you have a set of cryptographic signatures for each ledger produced by a large number of independently-operated validators, none of which gets to choose the rules by which new ledgers are created from prior ledgers. Further, the ledgers contain hash chains which lead to prior ledgers and signed transactions that justify the changes between them. Also important -- the gateways don't get to choose the rules by which transactions are executed, nor can they make exceptions to them. 1. what is to prevent collusion btwn several bank gateways to falsify a ledger? 2. why is this any different than the other iterations of digital cash that chained tx's and relied on digital signatures but failed due to centralization? 3. how often does the ledger have to be signed? after every tx, at the end of the day, or at the end of a month? 4. with proof of work, any independent node all the way down to the individual, knows to pick the longest chain in case of a conflict in the blockchain ledger since it represents the most amount of work (Byzantine General's problem). how does Ripple resolve conflicts btwn ledgers? 5. how can gateways ever hope to be as secure than true p2p (down to the individual) like Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Instead of acting as if Joel owes you an explanation, maybe you could first read the documentation that has already been provided, so that you might ask more intelligent and more informed questions.
Shadow of Harbinger has already pointed out several inconsistencies in the wiki. how can you expect anyone to get real, useful information out of there? which is why i'm asking you. |
|
|
|
this is just wrong. i have a 4.5 year history, a $1.3 billion market cap, and not one blockchain hack behind my assertions.
That is no reason to believe Bitcoin's algorithm is more reliable, just more reason to believe it is reliable. Not at all the same thing. true, but since you're the one's advocating a new kid on the block, the burden of proof is on you to educate the skeptics as to your claims about equal reliability. |
|
|
|
Nevertheless, you have no basis to believe a block chain is more reliable.
this is just wrong. i have a 4.5 year history, a $1.3 billion market cap, and not one blockchain hack behind my assertions. |
|
|
|
Instead of acting as if Joel owes you an explanation, maybe you could first read the documentation that has already been provided, so that you might ask more intelligent and more informed questions.
i have tried but don't understand it. since you're so smart why don't you educate us on consensus? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
