Why I would go to a gateway,
to give them my money,
my dirty fiat money,
for them to change to ripples,
to send around the network,
trusting all the network,
to send along some bitcoins,
or promise of some bitcoins,
to redeem against the gateway,
the one that has my money,
(and sent around those ripples)
in order for the gateway,
to give me lovely bitcoins
when I could get my bitcoins
(Satoshi's lovely bitcoins)
directly from the gateway
for my dirty fiat money -
why would I?
Because if bitcoins are cheaper at a different gateway, you can move your fiat around quickly and freely. Haven't you seen how different the prices are lately? The way I see it, with Ripples you have to have a heck of a lot of trust that people will do the right thing. With bitcoin, you don't need to, the network takes care of all that, its built in.
You have to trust an exchange if you're going to trade bitcoins. Its no different with ripple, except its called a gateway, and once you get your IOUs you're free to send and trade them just like bitcoins. Looking at the current state of mtgox and bitstamp prices, that is something the ecosystem really could use: a method other than bank and wire transfers for moving around fiat IOUs. But Fiat Gateway Ripple IOUs will not all be equal. If I were the GreatCloudBitcoinExchange.com I would value Ripple IOUs from German or Canadian Gateways, for example, much higher than USA gateways. This would have to be passed on somehow to those using the USA Gateway, hence the whole Ripple network has done nothing to prevent the difference in pricing and risk when using exchanges in different countries and with different companies. For any other transaction the local gateway could still use bitcoin, where no trust is required, to move funds across the world to another company. I don't understand how producing more debt that requires more trust and will require just as much regulation and information sharing does anything that the Dirty Legacy Fiat system doesn't do already. And those collecting debt will still need baseball bats, guns etc to collect. The beauty of Satoshi's bitcoins is it enables global transactions WITHOUT the need for debt or trust, freeing the masses from the Legacy Banking system so they individuals can concentrate on generating real meaningful wealth, not simulated fake banking profits supported by inflation and our future poverty. |
|
|
|
|
Why I would go to a gateway,
to give them my money,
my dirty fiat money,
for them to change to ripples,
to send around the network,
trusting all the network,
to send along some bitcoins,
or promise of some bitcoins,
to redeem against the gateway,
the one that has my money,
(and sent around those ripples)
in order for the gateway,
to give me lovely bitcoins
when I could get my bitcoins
(Satoshi's lovely bitcoins)
directly from the gateway
for my dirty fiat money -
why would I?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin - no inflation, no central point of control, no chargebacks, enables confirmed transactions with no trust.
Ripple - central points of failure, more ripples and xrp could be issued by central issuer, relies on trust and debt in gateways and those issuing the IOUs.
How will the ripple IOUs be enforced?
Bitcoin exchanges already are central points of failure! And MtGox's bank has limited them to ten(!!) SWIFT transfers per day. The exchange situation is a clusterfuck - that's why we see the ridiculous spread between mtgox price and bitstamp price. How are the MtGox IOUs enforced? MtGox maintains utter and complete control over its IOUs - remember when they used to allow MtGox USD codes? They removed them. A ripple gateway would never be able to control its IOUs like that - a gateway's IOUs trade freely on the ripple order books. Why would someone think trying to sell the ability to create IOUs to bitcoiners would give them anything but shit and drama? Debt Stinks... I should know   Centralized bitcoin exchanges are not the only way in and out !!! you can do private exchanges just as easily, just like cash. LocalBitcoins is a similar method for facilitating private exchanges.
LocalBitcoins - and now we are back to the SneakerNet - a time before the internet!! And then you get the LocalBitcoins exchangers who want to sell them at the MtGox price. No, there is a better way which takes advantage of the internet and technology utilizing next-gen cryptocurrency for decentralized exchange: Ripple. MTGox =/= BTC |
|
|
|
|
Only one choice allowed.
Whichever choice you identify with the most.
I've split Entrepreneur and Opportunist but some might argue this should be combined.
(edit sorry re typo in the title - should be are YOU ......)
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin - no inflation, no central point of control, no chargebacks, enables confirmed transactions with no trust.
Ripple - central points of failure, more ripples and xrp could be issued by central issuer, relies on trust and debt in gateways and those issuing the IOUs.
How will the ripple IOUs be enforced?
If governments don't like unlicensed money transfer I'm sure they'll love unlicensed and unregulated issuers of debt when they start turning up with their 7 foot mates to encourage non payers to cough up, especially if the id of the debt issuers is forged, spoofed etc.
To issue debt you need to be completely traceable and your identity known, as well as the identity of the person taking the debt, or else the system is useless.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep up the good work Dabs - I will sit at your tables at some point!
One more thought (naive thoughts as I am not too up to date on the concepts) - could multiple dealers be used somehow in a p2p scheme? Ie cards are shared between multiple dealers, with another dealer managing payouts and coordinating player actions? One dealer would therefore not know all the cards at any given time, which would make collusion more difficult, unless you happened to get dealers from the same crooked dealer pool on the same table? There would have to be some redundancy however, in case a dealer holding keys to a few cards went offline during a hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Just found this thread from my thread re the correspondance poker.
Unfortunately I'm not motivated enough to play your manual provably fair game but would eventually be interested in the outcomes from this.
Note heads up play is the easiest way to prevent collusion over time and removes a significant problem with anonymous online poker.
With regards to decentralised poker, would it be possible to have a P2P poker network where players can become 'anonymous dealers'. They basically hold some of the secret keys etc through the hand and reveal them at the end. They would hold the bitcoin balances for the tables but perhaps post an escrow in case their server went down during a hand / match . There could be a trust system built in so that players can rate the dealers. Over time and over many hands (ie a dealer would provie resources for many tables at a time) open player result stats might show crooked dealers who might also be communicating with crooked players. Each dealer could charge their own rake so that high trust might lead to higher rake, or more tables allowed, or higher stakes.
As the dealer identity is a public key the 'dealer' servers/computer could move location or site if jurisdiction issues arise, with an inbuilt incentive to build up dealer trust. Perhaps player 'trust' could be built in so that suspicion of collusion or playing too much on dodgy dealers would become a flag in itself.
Perhaps this would work - my understanding is that there is no fully trustless poker possible so far for p2p poker without some kind of dealer function- or am I incorrect?
|
|
|
|
I don't think poker is well suited to the idea you propose.
Agreed. There is this site apparently http://www.correspondencepoker.com/ which seems to attract some players, but to me it sounds incredibly boring for poker. Poker != Chess. And besides, 90% of the mistakes in poker are made because of the overly hasty decisions, we wouldn't want to get rid of that would we :p Actually that site had me quite enthralled for some time. The main problem was that it drew me back to heads up online play which is incredibly frustrating as it's full of people who play one hand then leave (bumhunters) even at the smallest stakes. That lead to playing at higher levels to find action and eventual crash and burn. |
|
|
|
Unlike correspondence chess where the state of the game is visible at all times, with poker, the state would need to be maintained on a server somewhere, and with 1 hand taking potentially a week, you'd be dependent on the server maintaining and not losing this information even during system updates. I guess the state of the game would be stored in a database. How would this be raked? As normal or at a higher fee? Is there a real market for this? The client would need to be browser based cos it's generally poker on the move?
What is the URL of the correspondence poker site?
Obviously some kind of open source peer to peer system is best but I would be happy to play on a third party host. I can't see any problem with hosts retaining information on the state of a number of games - they do this in live play and don't forget account balances etc when they do system updates so this isn't a significant issue. Rake doesn't need to be high at all as the system / server loads would be very low. Note the hands don't have to be played sequentially, rather when in a match one can play 20-50 tables at time vs one opponent at 1/50th of your usual comfortable one table buy in. The CPoker play site saw some quite serious play last time I checked. The experience is more cerebral and quite engaging as you are changing and balancing your play on many different tables against the same player over a period of days. |
|
|
|
I, like many here, am out for my own self interest.
In which case you may not want to vote for hamster girl. You know, the whole greed thing being a mortal sin and all and what with her being a religious fanatic. Doesn't mesh too well. Oh please, she's much better than just a christian. She's a christian zealot that is willing to fight even her own government for what she believes is right and has the education and background to know how to do it (see link below). Having her on our side is an injection of decency in a corruptible system. A young, energy filled, christian zealot is perfect for Bitcoin. No bureaucrat can accuse her of being an anti-government atheist radical when she promotes Bitcoin. She's moms apple pie rolled in the American flag pitching a baseball. Perfect! Bedsides if I never voted for christians I'd never vote. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/18/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/Whole hamster club here:  |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is decentralised such that:
1. No one can change the rate of bitcoin production
2. There is always the option to directly make transfers using a bitcoin client.
Having the option is very important even if people use online banks and wallets etc as it will act on a brake on banks and governments' usual tendancy to overlend, overspend, overregulate etc. Just the possibility of people banking directly should be enough to keep the overlying infrastructure in check.
|
|
|
|
Just listening to bitcoin podcasts, driving to work and dreaming about the future and remembered: Bitcoin is amazing Needed to share  |
|
|
|
I use Bitcoin to transfer money to my family overseas all the time (literally, at least once a week). I buy them through either Virtex or Coinbase, then transfer them to a localbitcoins.com contact in the city where my family lives and he hands them local currency. I used to use Western Union, but between the ridiculous WU fees and the even more ridiculous exchange rate controls in the country my family is in, I was losing over 40% of the original amount. With Bitcoin the transfer is instantaneous and I lose less than a fraction of 1%.
So how is this not working as a money transfer again?
+10000 This is the reason bitcoin will suceed. Governments are interested in national boundaries. People aren't. National fiat can stay local. Bitcoins are global. |
|
|
|
the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international. maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin. Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid of for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that. from my own geopolitical assessment of risk to Bitcoin's future, Germany's ruling allowing Bitcoin to function as a legal private currency was a seminal event. to me that means whatever the US gov't does to try and obstruct Bitcoin, it won't matter given this development. that is huge to me. i always assumed Platzer had a hand in this and now from the debate i learn that my suspicions were true. he's been working directly with Schaeffer (?) of the Bundesbank to get this done. that's big and indicates an ability to work with regulators towards what in essence guarantees Bitcoin's future, imo. Agreed and well said. The US will be one of the harder countries to gain gov approval in. Why not focus some effort on more open jurisdictions - the US will follow soon enough when they realise they are missing out. |
|
|
|
|
Also would work for those who like to play on commute - update your hands twice a day, as well as those who would play a few hands on the toilet when other half isn't watching but still like to challenge named opponents. Easy to play over html on smartphone or tablet also.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry shameless bump as hoping someone will develop this one day.
|
|
|
|
|
In fact she wouldn't kneecap you, just patronise you to death or talk nonsense non stop until you cracked and jumped off a bridge.
|
|
|
|
i'm confused how anybody who listened to the debate at letstalkbitcoin.com can support Elizabeth Ploshay.
Agreed. She gets +1 for realising btc is the future. -10 for not realising how a decentralised peer to currency DOES NOT NEED 'organised decentralisation'. I see her vision as similar to Hell's Angels chapters - ie if in your decentralised Chapter you make a decision the Board disagree with then ETP will fly over and kneecap you. Bitcoin is not reliant on USA approval. The foundation should focus on core development with the goal to maintain freedom if transaction. They can do some education but expat Somalians transferring remittances to Somalia or Argentinians trying to save money without hyperinflation don't need permission or cheer leading from ETP automaton. Joerg is the most clear about what bitcoin is and can communicate that excellently. |
|
|
|
|
She was quite annoying to listen to on the letstalkbitcoin debates.
I actually thought she was a computer programmed to spout various pro bitcoin and pro libertarian phrases at random.
Her focus is far too Washington centric.
Personally I like the Europeans and any of the others who don't want to pay for bitcoin lobbyists.
There are some models of how to influence people re new ideas somewhere - go for easier areas first so if that's not USA - who cares. The spotify guy did an interview on there re how they started in one of the Scandinavian countries first then spread to larger ones once they had demonstrated the advantages to the music industry.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
