A issuer should be visible somewhere for every currency in your ripple wallet. Maybe not straight when you look at balances, but somewhere you should be able to see how many btc you got from bitstamp and how many bitcoins you have issued by justcoin. Just an example. Also, how do you choose how to shorten an issued asset? I for instance issued bernankoins and it shortened it to ber instead of the "official" bek. And what happens when someone issues something let's say called "bernardo" and ripple shortens that to ber too?
It is visible on the "trust" tab. Actually currency codes used "should" only be the official ISO ones (which already XRP and BTC both violate), this is obviously not enforced though. http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/x-iso4217-a3 might be a solution, seems to be dormant atm. though. |
|
|
|
Need to withdraw diminishes as the network expands; the IOU becomes a functional placeholder for the currency. Depending on the currency, withdrawal from the gateway could be rapid---and potentially instant if banks begin to act as gateway services.
No they don't. We have already determined that you won't get IOUs from anyone you do not extend a trust line to. Therefore the IOUs are not generally tradeable. If you guys don't understand the system then ... They are generally tradeable, that's why market makers exist in Ripple. As long as there is a market path between 2 currencies, you can make a transfer in Ripple. You don't need to trust the issuer that the recipient trusts. |
|
|
|
But why should I send btc through ripple when I can just send it directly? Its adding an extra step with 0 benefit as far as I can tell. They don't add chargeback capability, etc.
Because your other party does NOT want to receive BTC (BitPay and Coinbase have hundreds, if not thousands of merchants as customers who want to allow people to pay in BTC but who want to receive USD/EUR/... instead). Ripple is like decentralized BitPay, it is not designed as a real competitor to pure Bitcoin transactions (you could do off-chain microtransactions cheaper maybe). |
|
|
|
Ripple is not even a cryptocurrency, because if you store it on your harddrive they still can devalue your coins because of their build in system.
Uhm what? The value of XRP is derived on the open market, just like BTC (who also change in value even if you don't move them). Somehow the signal/noise ratio is quite bad in this kind of threads... |
|
|
|
|
Send what? Your one liners don't help.
|
|
|
|
|
Ripple is a decentralized exchange that can trade a LOT of currencies from various issuers. "Ripples" (XRP) are the native asset there, if you think they will go "to the moon" feel free to buy some (I prefer to get mine for free or in exchange for running BOINC), they are not the major reason why Ripple exists though.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot deposit BTC to a "network" in Ripple either, everything besides XRP is tied to an issuer that needs to explicitly be either trusted or at least traded for (you can set up and fill a buy order for BTC.Bitstamp even if you don't have a trust line towards Bitstamp).
Where is the source code for bitlucky.io by the way?
|
|
|
|
Das liest sich echt nicht gut. Seit 14 (?) Tagen die gleiche Masche: "Bin Hero-Member, habe lupenreines Trust-Rating, brauche die Coins ganz schnell, mache deshalb kein Escrow". Projects hat offensichtlich mitgenommen, was er kriegen konnte.
Vielleicht hat er auch einfach seinen Account verkauft oder verloren? |
|
|
|
When I put btc into ripple where the hell does it go
It stays with the person/service you deposited to until you withdraw. When you put BTC into MtGox, where do they go? Fuck that When you put BTC into http://bitlucky.io, where the hell do they go?  |
|
|
|
When I put btc into ripple where the hell does it go
It stays with the person/service you deposited to until you withdraw. When you put BTC into MtGox, where do they go? |
|
|
|
Why are you going through all this hassle when you can just use Bitstamp directly, without Ripple in the middle? Because using BTC.Bitstamp on Ripple you can trade over a dozen different currencies both fiat (e.g. CNY) and crypto (e.gg LTC). Using BTC.Bitstamp on Bitstamp internal, you can buy XRP at inflated prices or trade USD.Bitstamp, that's it. Nonsense. Ripple offers zero value in the payment system.
For cryptocurrency to cryptocurrency, we can already send any amount directly to anybody anywhere instantly.
For Fiat currency, even with the use of Ripple, you will still need to use the banking system to move the money to the end point. You can't magically move US$100K from one place to another. Someone will still need to absorb the banking fee for the transfer.
So why even create a complex system when it doesn't improve things at all?
Please send LTC using BTC (it would even theoretically possible!)... With Ripple you can choose which part of the banking system (if at all) and which interface you want to use. You pay fees only for clearing balances - if you needed to pay banking transaction fees (or Bitcoin transaction fees for that matter) for every single trade on Bitstamp or MtGox, you'd not trade much any more. Bitcoins (mostly) don't get traded on-chain for cash - they are traded BTC IOU for USD IOU. Currently the issuers of these IOUs must be the same (you can't trade on MtGox with your Bitstamp balance), with Ripple they only need a market path between them and can be different. Why does Ripple force me to manually reduce my trust with Bitstamp to zero after a transaction. Why isn't this automatic?
Because it does not really make sense in my opinion to change your opinion about believing that you could redeem e.g. BTC issued by Bitstamp just based on the fact that you received some. Anyways, for something like this there are 3 possibilities: Integrate it in the client which would then watch out for a certain trust line and address, once something is received there from this address - e.g. Bitstamp's hot wallet - sign and send a trust changing transaction. This means you need to be online when receiving funds and also means that you need to be able to ensure that you receive funds in one single payment (e.g. Bitstamp could send you 100 single USD for whatever reason). or Integrate it as flag or other server/protocol side measure. This would be probably the better long-term choice, might need some convincing to get someone at RippleLabs to write the code for you though or to get your own code for this pulled. I've heard about this idea (nulling trust lines after the first incoming transaction to ensure you only receive 1 single payment - could be made more generic by allowing time frames or numbers of transactions) already 2 or 3 times, so if you really implement it well, it might even get pulled even though they disagree with the general idea because it is a valid use case after all. or Wait for contracts to be done and hope that this can be encoded in there (it most likely can, requesting this feature might likely get the response "possible with contracts"). |
|
|
|
|
computingforgood.org already does this (it is a distribution mechanism for XRP, where you apparently found TradeFortress' "description" of it) and there are 2 altcoin projects that also try something like that.
The power consumption estimate is likely far off, as nowadays BTC are probably mined with ASICs almost exclusively (even large botnets do not make much sense any more for SHA256 coins). BOINC also is a generic infrastructure project and does not equal "meaningful work" in any way.
|
|
|
|
Is this you justifying how centralized Ripple is?
Ripple is NOT centralized, XRP are. I haven't seen him make a single substantive point. All the "problems" he points out exist with Bitcoin too. His point was that Ripple being centralized on trading balances/IOUs adds the problem of redeeming these unlike trading native assets (which STILL does not work by the way after years, I have yet to see a successful BTC <--> LTC trade using Mike Hearn's or any other contract transaction protocol!). This does not exist in native BTC, as they are unbacked and just floating on the free market, unlike IOUs. Native BTC are actually more centralized than e.g. USD, have currently a higher rate of inflation... anyways, as I said the problem exists, but in my opinion it is not a real problem for BTC users in the first place, it can be limited to reasonable degrees for fiat users and it can be priced in as well as prevented individually. |
|
|
|
99.5% of ripple is still owned by the developers.
So out of 100 billion coins only 500 million are in circulation. Nope, wrong. About 10 billion have been distributed so far, 45 billion still to go. Source: http://k.ripplecn.org/list.txt (XRP balances of Ripple addresses) What's your source for that 500 million circulation claim? Also (unlike e.g. Bitcoins #13million - #21million) all XRP/NXT/MSC/... can theoretically be transferred and traded at any point in time, mined coins can be transferred only once they are mined. |
|
|
|
I'm fond of saying that Ripple is like Bitcoin for people who don't want to topple the government. If I'm still using dollars and euros in 10 years, I'd prefer to do it in Ripple. The feds should feel free to guarantee my Citibank IOUs, as they already do.
IOUs have to be paid. I'd rather trade with what I have so I know exactly where I stand. A person/institution can do a lot of trading through Ripple with NO financial investment, just trust. I don't agree with this principle. I still believe that if a large financial institution defaults then a lot of ordinary users will have their balances raided, just like what's going on now with QE. Institutions fail, people pay. So how do you trade BTC for USD? |
|
|
|
|
@casascius:
Currently the only asset that fulfills your "you own it 100%" criteria on Ripple is XRP and in my opinion they are a quite sucky currency, so yes, that is a core problem on Ripple as you described it.
BUT:
A much larger part of BTC is transacted off-chain (mainly on pools and exchanges, some as physical coins or paper wallets...) as IOUs and the transaction volume of even a single larger exchange is huge compared to what happens on the block chain. Also large parts of on-chain transactions only exist to settle off-chain balances (e.g. depositing/withdrawing from mining pools or exchanges). Ripple offers help in this regard, it does not really try to tackle the "own your own asset" part of Bitcoin anyways. That's why I also hold (and will continue to hold) BTC - I really hope that in the future I can spend them using Ripple even more often instead of having to hope that MtGox does not do another "audit" where millions of BTC IOUs get issued in the process secretly.
A court by the way cannot stop Ripple transactions from happening either, they can only influence the need for redemption. That's why finding a trustworthy gateway is important in Ripple and not in Bitcoin (as real BTC can't be redeemed for anything anyways) unless you want to use Bitcoin IOUs (on any service where you "deposit" coins) for whatever reason, mostly to trade them or earn interest on them or to avoid dust transactions.
That's why it is a bit puzzling to me why so many people here seem to oppose Ripple THAT much - it will if at all increase Bitcoin adoption and enable more people to acquire them. Most Bitcoins that were stolen were deposits at centralized services, NOT individual balances (well, some because of RNG weaknesses for example, but these amounts are tiny compared to what was simply carried out by the operator of that "Sheep market place") by the way, hence the title of this thread - Ripple would enable you to keep your BTC on your own wallet for longer amounts of time or limit the amount of services you deposit BTC to by decoupling depositing/redemption from the actual marketplace. Also BTC is one of the currencies and payment networks that is naturally one of the easiest to work with and integrate in something like Ripple (relatively fast confirmations and finalization of payments) - the real challenge is for example to offer a bridge from and to SEPA.
(As a personal note: I really enjoy the fact that you are able to find a core problem with Ripple (which is in my opinion just not that much of a problem, since BTC solves it nicely instead and Ripple focuses on something else) and articulate this instead of just blurting out one-liners like some other people around here)
|
|
|
|
Ripple is not a currency, XRP are and they are called "ripples" (which is an unfortunate name imho). They are getting distributed more and more, if you dislike this aspect as the only one that much though, you might like to work together with Iain on getting Splash off the ground: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=372486.0 / https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SplashIf he manages to keep his stuff reasonably localized in the code (should be possible imho), he'd be able to pull improvements from upstream relatively easily. |
|
|
|
|
It is a POTENTIAL legal one and if you read the link I gave before you might be able to guess in which direction gateways need to be licensed probably.
Bitcoins are far less legally explored than digital IOU transfer systems and while I definitely would see that as a major risk, I wouldn't call it a "core flaw" of that system (Bitcoin is also a bit more "safe" in that regard as it advertises 0 backing, it tries to be a pure bubble right from the start).
Anyways, I hope to also get some legally binding opinions in the future about what transferring Ripple IOUs means and when you have to redeem them, how to do that and so on. In the meantime I would recommend nobody to see Ripple IOU transfers as something that can be ignored, not binding or something that won't hold before a court. I have yet to see actual arguments that would support such a view actually other than that contracts in that regard are implied by the network, but not always explicitly written, printed and signed by both parties directly and then filed away.
By the way: There already have been HUGE amounts of BTC scammed out of bitcoin users by misusing trust, still it didn't hurt the system at all - why should the occasional dishonest/fraudulent gateway hurt Ripple so much more or be a core flaw?
|
|
|
|
I don't get how people don't understand this after 1-2 hours of reading and still claim that Ripple is so complex,
Especially if those people do understand the complexities of Bitcoin... Yeah, just like with Bitcoin, there are certainly different levels of understanding (I rarely try to go beyond "it's both digital money, depending on your perception of what money actually is you'll see it as currency or asset" with BTC for example), the basic "Ripple = distributed exchange and marketplace" part shouldn't be THAT hard to get though. Most Bitcoiners seem to have a hard time ignoring XRP as native asset, maybe since all they are used to so far are systems that only exist for this single asset and you need to jump through hoops to actually trade it? What happens if I "receive" a Casascius coin in RL and I want to exchange it for the real asset but the person who made it already took the money from it - or worse: runs a hidden node that will double-spend with a high fee any coin that I try tro move off a Casascious coin so I have no way other than trust to spend the BTC?
Then you have the benefit of recourse against Casascius who has made public representations guaranteeing he has not kept the keys which you relied upon before accepting a Casascius Coin, and any sweep like that would be evidence to the contrary which would be a tortious and likely criminal fraud that caused you a loss. There is also a big difference - for me to commit a theft like this (assuming I still had keys and actually could), this would require affirmative steps taken to commit the theft, unlike a Ripple counterparty who merely needs to do nothing to default on someone. Since I've made clear my real life identity and plenty of people have confirmed it, and have publicly stated my intentions to remain subject to the law, I think it's not apt as a comparison. I can think of several ways how you could commit theft even more passively (e.g. issuing several coins with the same private key or also just getting "hacked", being "sorry" and move on like TradeFortress) Still in the end one has to trust you (that you keep your promises) as well as the legal system (if you don't keep your promises) to use your coins. This is not different to Ripple, where the only difference is that you simply declare and encode that trust in a special type of transaction instead of just implying it by using your service(s). Ripple, on the other hand, can fail spectacularly with as few as three people. Alice "owes" Bob and Bob "sells" that debt to Charlie, as Charlie trusts Alice. Despite that trust, Alice doesn't feel like paying Charlie, or claims that she never actually owed "Bob", but rather, a hacker made the original transfer and so it never truly existed in the first place. Charlie is pretty much SOL and can't sue to recover from Alice because legally Alice doesn't owe Charlie anything. His sole remedy is to let Bob know what a jerk of a friend he has. This is no big deal if we're talking lunch money, but when it's $10k or $50k, we're talking bigger amounts than most people's social capital really makes sense to leverage. So you mean the following network (A,B,C are Alice, Bob and Charlie) for example (using 100 USD amounts): B trusts A for 1000 USD and has currently 100 USD deposited with A. C trusts A for 1000 USD and has currently 0 USD deposited with A. B sends 100 USD.A to C and gets something in return for that outside of Ripple (e.g. a nice massage). A now claims that the 100 USD B has deposited were used up because she felt like shopping, the 100 USD were charged back by PayPal, or that only B would be allowed to redeem anyways. What A did is most likely illegal under EU directive 2009/110/EC ( http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/emoney/) and probably also in most other jurisdictions worldwide too. C has every legal right to sue her and these laws governing this are in place far longer than e.g. Bitcoin existing, not very abstract, complex or exotic at all and he would have a very easy time finding an eager lawer to represent this easy case. Also C did something not very smart by not checking beforehand with A that he is actually allowed to withdraw (e.g. C is based in Cuba, A in the US...), so there might be situations where A legitimately can not send the actual assets to someone who wants to redeem them (e.g. one of your customers enters a invalid payment address). Meanwhile, Ripple aside, if Alice "owes" Bob and they have a written agreement, and Bob "assigns" that debt to Charlie with a written assignment agreement... the whole thing is magically enforceable in a court of law (happens every day with debt collectors). Amazingly, a mere piece of paper (or equivalent signed electronic communication) has just trumped all of Ripple in terms of usefulness, and even works with larger amounts like $50k. (Now for lunch money, Ripple's probably got it beat for convenience...but then again...so has cash, paypal, or your favorite bank payment app) Ripple in its current form is not really any more this "community credit" system that you describe, A most likely is a registered MSP in B's and C's jurisdiction, publishes regular audits and deals with amouts far beyond 50k USD (Bitstamp alone has a few millions of USD issued on Ripple right now, not even counting BTC or other currencies). Ripple transactions are digitally signed, cannot be faked without having the private key and so on. This is even easier to proof than e.g. a Bitcoin payment to a merchant service like BitPay where you first need to provide proof that the address you sent to was actually from them (and not e.g. displayed by a trojan on your system), the only chance for that being to contact them and ask for a custom text signed witht he private key of that address or doing blockchain analysis. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
