Bitcoin Forum
August 01, 2021, 07:25:01 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 »
361  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why Ripple has failed. on: September 23, 2013, 05:17:28 PM
You know that is exactly how many people would (accurately) describe Bitcoin?
A solution in search of a problem that the average man on the street doesn't need.
As QuantPlus pointed out there are novel problems that Bitcoin solves that nothing else can touch, but it also performs as a medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account better anything else ever invented.

Even the last person that joins the Bitcoin economy will benefit directly from the aforementioned qualities.

Ripple (as initially imagined) was based on a whimsical idea of aggregate debt that doesn't mesh with the real world. If they can salvage it and build a open source distributed exchange, I could see some value in that, but it barely qualifies as novel.

Therefore the objection that Ripple is a solution looking for a problem does not apply to Bitcoin in equal measure. I just don't see it.
362  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why Ripple has failed. on: September 23, 2013, 02:15:12 PM
Please tell me in your words what is the difference between me depositing btc at and at a ripple gateway and where the loan terms etc of inputs are.
Hi Sukrim.
I don't think there is any big difference between and a Ripple gateway, besides the platform on which it does its exchanging.
However, my criticism with Ripple is with the Liquidity Provider mechanism that Gateways do not participate in.

I contend that Gateways are not Liquidity Providers because the problems I mentioned become grossly obvious at that scale, but the problems exist just as tenaciously and corrosively among the user base.

I don't have any disagreement with you if you say people can exchange in Ripple in a lender/borrower relationship, because that is the same thing as removing the Liquidity Providers from the system.

1. The only person/gateway you could reliably trust with USD in Ripple is the Fed. The only gateway you could trust with EUR is the ECB. You cannot trust any other parties. If you trust "some-shitty-gateway" with USD, they would be able to exchange *your* Fed-USD for some-shitty-gateway-USD. Some-shitty-gateway-USD are much much worse than Fed-USD.
Yep. Inevitably the most trusting individuals in the system get bad IOU's dumped on them. They didn't fix this problem by making Gateways not Liquidity Providers, they just distributed that risk among the user base.

2. Because of (1), you cannot reliably transfer USD, EUR or BTC within Ripple. The Fed does not participle in the Ripple system, and there is *NO* BTC gateway that would be fundamentally reliable, because BTC is not centrally issued. Playing with debt money is just asking for disaster, that will eventually happen.
I disagree that it's impossible to transfer IOU's reliably. If Liquidity Providers are removed, then the system would be a way to transfer Certificates of Deposit. There's nothing intrinsically impossible about that task.
It's true that Gateways have varying reliability, but users can evaluate the risk and factor that into the price of the IOU.
It's also true that there will be disasters in the system, but that's just a reflection of the fact that debt is inherently risky.

Short version: Ripple is only good for DumbFruit to issue DumbFruit-dollars. Nothing else.
363  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: If people truly knows what Ripple is, nobody would use it. on: September 20, 2013, 06:05:15 PM
OpenCoin will change the rules and push out the original Gateways and Market Makers...
And just take over the whole fucking network.
What are the "original Gateways and Market Makers"?
364  Economy / Exchanges / Re: Is a scam? on: September 20, 2013, 01:59:49 PM
No. It's not a scam.

They're just late to the party and getting their name out there. I would use them if they did USD transactions, but I can understand why they don't at the moment.

Our grand overlords here in the States have made it damned difficult.
365  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: If people truly knows what Ripple is, nobody would use it. on: September 20, 2013, 01:49:43 PM
I didn't know about charging interest and sending it to Gateways. That's pretty silly.

One should take pause at the idea that Gateway's aren't forced into the risk of being a Liquidity Provider, but the lowly Peons in the system don't get any such protection.

Of course JoelKatz will dive and say, "A Gateway could choose to be a Liquidity Provider as well.", but that doesn't answer the question, "Why aren't Gateway's Liquidity Providers by default, like users are?"

The answer is because the problems that plague Liquidity Providers are grossly obvious when the Liquidity Provider is a Gateway, but the problems still exist less obviously among the user-base.
366  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why Ripple has failed. on: September 20, 2013, 01:05:42 PM
Quote from: bibbit link=topic=297287.msg3191090#msg3191090

Once you consider how IOUs really flow within the system, the fact that you can't be forced to accept an IOU from someone you don't trust no matter what,
To just touch on this point again..

More important than the issue of the contractual obligations and moral hazard is the fact that the IOU's don't carry any information to the lender. (asset holder.)

It's not a feature of ripple that the tie between the lender and borrower is broken by a myriad of jumps, it's a defect.

It's a defect precisely for the reason described in my opening post. If you break the relationship between the lender and the borrower, then you have to try to derive the correct terms of the IOU at the final point from the relationships along consecutive users in the chain, which bears no relevance to the problem.

But maybe I'm getting too theoretical.

In markets today if you want to borrow money you have to go directly to to the lender and present your case. You have to tell them what the loan is for, what your experience is, how trustworthy you have been in the past (Credit rating), and what you can use to back your loan (Collateral).

Using this information, the lender decides the risk of the loan, and assigns an appropriate interest rate and length of the loan.

In Ripple, this doesn't take place. Instead, the borrower goes to his friend (who's standards are usually much lower than a bank.) then the friend goes to his friend and so forth.

How can you determine an appropriate interest rate and terms for the loan from unrelated relationships in a chain? You can't. All of the appropriate data that could be used to make the determination is washed away long before the request gets to the lender.

In this way, highly risky loans make their way to asset holders through Liquidity Providers without any warning or determination being made by the lender.

That's why the fact that IOU's are not literally passed to the lender does not solve the problem that I was talking about in the opening post.
367  Economy / Gambling / Re: Player wins a 46k Audi on Just-Dice! on: September 20, 2013, 12:16:16 PM
I would like to know if he qualified for the out of body audi autobody outie audit.

Also, I think that car is pretty ugly... But to each their own!
368  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why Ripple has failed. on: September 19, 2013, 08:36:10 PM
Once you consider how IOUs really flow within the system, the fact that you can't be forced to accept an IOU from someone you don't trust no matter what, and when you take into account that Trust Line Quality is built into the system and will be exposed in a future update, the basis of your argument falls apart.
My argument isn't going anywhere because Trust Line Quality does not, and can not, address the problems presented, and neither does the name of the IOU at the endpoint of the chain.

The name on the IOU makes zero difference if the person that instigated it defaults, because the bottom line is there's a debt that needs to be paid and no one along the chain has an incentive to eat the loss. At what point would they eat the loss anyway? Is there an expiration date on IOU's now?

Trust Line Quality tries to emulate the interest rates in a market, but the interest in sections of a chain do not (and can not) come close to approximating the risk of default of a given debt. There is no relationship.
At best this could be wildly wrong to the point of costing too much for anyone to get any significant quantity of IOU's. At worst it would be just low enough for people to use it and default for the free cash.

OpenCoin could  cripple the web of trust so profoundly that no one uses it for any significant amount, or they could just get rid of the entire concept of a Liquidity Provider, because it's broken.

It doesn't matter how many rules or caveats OpenCoin tries to come up with the patch it up because you can't derive a subjective value, and interpersonal contractual arrangements, from the trusted value's among consecutive parties.
One does not follow from the other.
369  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why Ripple has failed. on: September 19, 2013, 03:45:20 PM
The recent laws about transfering USD around will mean this will likely be restricted or stopped.
Probably and good point, but I was trying not to focus on externalities. They also need to get Gateways into the system, and they require a large user base, but that's not a problem intrinsic to the current Ripple system.
Unlike the ability of users to be Liquidity Providers, which is broken.

because i see the future and i said it was going to?
Because you can see the current Ripple system, compare it to the original Ripple claims, and see that they are not the same.
370  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple XRP to go open source on Sept 26 ! (UPDATE - already up 60% and climbing) on: September 19, 2013, 02:58:11 PM
You may want to start another thread to talk about the long-term value of the ripple protocol.
371  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Why Ripple has failed. on: September 19, 2013, 02:41:25 PM
I was asked to create a new Thread on this subject rather than derail the other thread. So here goes nothing.

Ripple at its conception was the idea that in a web of trust debt (IOU's) can be created and destroyed among two or more parties that do not know each other.

The maximum amount that these two parties would trust each other was derived from the chain of proximate trust among a string of people between the two unknown parties. The lowest trusted amount along the chain would be assumed to be the trust between the two unknown parties.

The people in between the unknown parties are called "Liquidity Providers".

Flow of IOU
Party A -> Party B -> ... Party Z
If the lowest trust in that chain is 50 cents, then it is assumed that Party A could get an IOU from Party Z worth 50 cents and vice versa.

The name "Ripple" came from the idea that debt would be created and passed along this web in a ripple-like fashion.

This would be extremely useful because potentially the IOU's could be traded on the market without even needing to redeem them at a "Gateway". (A gateway is essentially just another party that is generally trusted and has a lot of assets. Usually a Bank.)

This would replace all of the tedious vetting, oversight, and redemption mechanisms for debt that exist today.

Almost immediately upon the acquisition of Ripple by OpenCoin, the web of trust was almost entirely destroyed because what became immediately apparent is that a trust relationship among two end parties cannot be derived from the known trust relationships among consecutive parties no matter how intuitive it might seem.

Consider your best friend. You might trust this friend with $10,000 no questions asked. How much would you trust your friends friend, no questions asked? If you're prudent, the answer would be "nothing".

However, in the ripple system, if your friend trusts his friend for $10,000 then this unknown person could borrow $10,000 from you!

Now if this person borrows from you and defaults, who's at fault? Would it be reasonable to sue your best friend because he's the one that extended trust out to this person that screwed you over? Do they share fault? This is frustrating enough, but in Ripple the defaulter could be a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend etc, and you could suddenly be out $10.00 .

I hope I've made it clear at this point that even one liquidity provider between a lender and a borrower is broken. It cannot be rationally done, and it cannot be fixed.

In order for this to work appropriately an algorithm to calculate the derived trust relationship between two unknown parties given only the trusted principle between consecutive parties in a chain would need to be formulated. Given that trust is subjective, no such algorithm can ever be formulated.

Therefore, the liquidity provider mechanism in Ripple needs to be removed entirely.

OpenCoin has not done this. Instead, no Gateways act as liquidity providers, and users are asked not to trust anyone but gateways. If a user is foolish enough to extend trust to even their best friend, they could be out real money in the aforementioned fashion.

At this point the only way OpenCoin's Ripple implementation works is if no one acts as a liquidity provider. No web of trust can exist. Therefore Ripple, as initially envisioned, has failed.

Now, even if the first impossible algorithm was formulated. There is a second fault in the Ripple system as original envisioned. The principle of a debt is not the only factor that determines the value of a debt. Initially it might seem intuitive that a $10 debt between two individuals is functionally equivalent, so that two lenders could trade their IOU's among each-other freely.

However, the value of debt in a marketplace is derived from the chance of default, the length of time the debt is held, the value of the principle, and the subjective value of a product held today versus the promise of a product at a future date.

Therefore, the value of a unit of USD IOU from Bank A and the value of a USD IOU from Bank B are different. They can not be equivalently exchanged based only on the principle.

This sounds crazy, but a quick thought experiment will prove to you that it is true.

Consider that your best friend owes you $10,000, and a your friend is owed $10,000, could you exchange the IOU's and wipe out the debt? No, because you still have to redeem the IOU's with your friends friend, which may not be good for it. You value the debt between your best friend differently than you value the debt with some person you don't know.

In summary Ripple, as was initially envisioned, failed for two reasons;

1.) No algorithm can be formulated to predict the trust relationship between two end parties given only the trust relationship among consecutive parties in the chain.

2.) The value if debt is subjectively determined. Therefore, no accurate calculation can be performed between IOU's, even if they are denominated the same underlying asset.

So that's how the original Ripple idea failed, but I will go a step further and describe why today's Ripple will not work.

Today's Ripple still holds onto the ghost of liquidity providers, but only among users (not gateways), and therefore exposes users to the risk of holding onto irredeemable IOU's in the event of a Gateway default (Or even a user default if they in-advisably trust someone other than a Gateway).
Not only are Ripple users not compensated for this risk, but Gateway will almost surely charge a premium to issue IOU's.

Think about that for a second. You go to a bank, give them money, and then receive a promise to get that same amount back from them less 1 or so percent at a future date. It's a CD with a negative return.

Not only is this perverse, but Gateways have an incentive to give out as many of these IOU's as they possibly can and then avoid redemption through any kind of contrivance that they -or their government- can dream up.

The people at OpenCoin say that this isn't a problem because the IOU's would devalue and the Gateway would not be able to sell their IOU's. This is true, but nonetheless there is a constant Moral Hazard built into the system that doesn't normally exist. (Fractional reserves are all but guaranteed.)

For the current system to work,
1.) IOU's would have to redeem for an amount higher than the principle. (I can't think of any way to do that besides introducing a Minimum-Held time to IOU's)
Edit: If users can't be Liquidity Providers, the above might not be necessary for some assets, given the utility gained by being able to exchange the IOU's.
2.) The final nail needs to be put in the coffin of "Liquidity Provider". (It should be removed entirely.)

While those problems are not unsolvable, they are tremendous tasks that are burdened by the cost of XRP, and it ensures only limited liquidity on the system.

Instant redemptions on this Ripple system are a fantasy. Edit: That's not really claimed anyway.

Now. If those problems are solved, Ripple will be an open source, trust-based, free to enter system for the trading of CD's denominated in any arbitrary asset (currencies/stores of value). Cool.
The great thing about that is any currency can be exchanged if the user base is big enough, without the need of Gateways to hold onto any IOU's of other Gateways.
For instance, you could trade a XBT IOU with a ripple user for a USD IOU, and then redeem the USD IOU at the USD Gateway, which doesn't care at all that you originally had a XBT IOU.

Edit: Expanded the explanation of the benefits of a working "quasi-ripple".

Excellent objections can be found here;
372  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple XRP to go open source on Sept 26 ! (UPDATE - already up 60% and climbing) on: September 18, 2013, 08:08:34 PM
You are not able to force IOUs upon anyone that they don't want - if you manage to trade a mattress IOU for RUB directly, this person has to have trusted the mattress IOU issuer explicitly.

What is more likely is that you trade mattress --> USD.Bitstamp --> RUB.RussianGateway which involves two atomic trades, where someone gets the mattress IOU they are willing to accept for USD.Bitstamp via an open market order and someone else gets these USD.Bitstamp and give you RUB.RussianGateway, as well through an explicit market order. There is no way the second person will end up with a mattress unless he/she explicitly want them.

All you're saying is that the Gateways do not accept anything but currencies from trusted Gateways. Fine, but you have the same problem, just less obvious.

You have an intrinsic inescapable Moral Hazard built into the system whereby Gateways are incentivized to over-borrow (issue IOU's), and then make it difficult to redeem.

And I hope you noticed that you have to keep restricting the trust in the system and remove the concept of liquidity provider entirely in order to get it to work. What you described above is a far cry from the original vision of Ripple.

Ripple works similar to your bank account: Whoever sends you money (e.g. I send you 10 EUR from Deutsche Bank) - it will be converted in the end via one or more intermediates to a balance of USD IOUs of your own bank. Yes, there might be special cases, I know, but the basic principle is that if someone sends you money from a different bank, you don't receive something that can be only redeemed at that other bank - you receive a balance with your own bank (gateway). Ripple just makes these conversions explicit and public, instead of implicit and hidden away (you cannot choose on a free market who exchanges my EUR.DeutscheBank to your USD.BankOfAmerika for example).
And the idea of liquidity provider returns with a vengeance...
Yes you do receive something that can be only redeemed at the other bank.

Somewhere along the line the USD.A needs to end up at BANK.A in order to be redeemed. Otherwise; Open palm, insert face.

Say there's Bank A, B, and C and they issue the IOU's USD.A, USD.B, USD.C respectively. They are all liquidity providers for the others.

If USD.B or USD.C ends up at Bank A, then Bank A might redeem the dollars, but the bank has to turn around with those IOU's and redeem them at the other banks. There's no way around this. You can't just convert USD.B or USD.C to USD.A because that would reduce debt of the other banks and decrease the reserves of Bank A, exposing it to the risk of insolvency for no gain. (Ignoring that each unit of USD.A, USD.B, and USD.C has a different value in the market.)

That holds true for XBT, EUR, RUB, or any other currency.

There might be other people with different valuations etc. but the basic principle is still that of an open and free market for price (and through price: risk) discovery. Just like what's currently happening still with USD.MtGox vs. USD.Bitstamp.
You're correct in saying that markets calculate the value of IOU's among banks already. It works beautifully, so what's the point of ripple again?

In summary; If you get rid of the liquidity provider and allow IOU's of the same principal to have different values, then yes you can have a working trust-based media of exchange. What's the big deal?

We already have ways of managing trust among businesses. We can already exchange currencies with trusted businesses. Why should we be so enthusiastic about this?
373  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple XRP to go open source on Sept 26 ! (UPDATE - up 83% and climbing) on: September 18, 2013, 04:51:23 PM
Hate to sell early only to miss XRP's "260/Cyprus" moment.
I'd be more concerned about its "Pompeii" moment.
374  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple XRP to go open source on Sept 26 ! (UPDATE - already up 60% and climbing) on: September 18, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
wow. all this negative talk about ripple and passionate people defending it is intriguing. to hate a project intensely, then opencoin must doing something to disrupt the disruptors.
Or maybe there are many people that are frustrated by OpenCoin's opaque front about the underlying failure of the Ripple concept and further irritated that they have claimed to be open source from day one; QED this announcement.

This is the underlying concept and "genius" of the ripple system; Obligations to redeem a token for a currency are functionally equivalent to holding the currency itself, or the equivalent exchange rate of any other currency IOU or asset IOU.
Since all debt is equivalent, debt can be generated through trust relationships (Friends of friends) and then be traded in the system. All intermediaries between the debtor and the lender are called "Liquidity Providers".

There are two UNSOLVABLE problems with this.

What has been quickly found out and even demonstrated by TradeFortress, is that debt through liquidity providers is open to immediate abuse. After all, even if there is a trust relationship between A and B, and between B and C, that doesn't mean there is any trust between A and C.

That is one unsolvable problem. It is unsolvable because there is no algorithm known to man that can predict any trust relationship between two strangers based on the relationship between a common person or string of people. (There is also the problem of deciding what the contractual relationship is between all three+ parties, but that's not unsolvable, persay. Daunting, for sure.)

The second unsolvable problem is predicting the value of debt versus assets immediately at hand. It is clear that IOU's traded should trade at a value above the principal, but what no algorithm can ever do is predict what that value is. It's subjective. Interest rates (which is essentially the same thing.) can only emerge from the calculation of independent actors in a free market.
(This problem is further complicated by the fact that it is dependent on the terms of the IOU. Length held, and risk of irredeemability are factors.)

If I had to sum up the killer of Ripple in one word it would be; Heuristics. The Ripple system demands that an algorithm be created to predict heuristics in a market given only trusted value between proximate individuals.

Has OpenCoin even tried to attack this daunting impossible task? No. What have they done instead? They ask that NO ONE trust ANYONE except gateways. Which INVALIDATES the entire Ripple concept.

After all, what are we left with when there is no web of trust in Ripple? An open platform for the exchange of resource obligations tied to the necessary XRP of which the majority is owned by handful of individuals.

We already have that, without the private company or the limitations of Ripple. It's called a "Free Market".

The only thing that Ripple would add is the ability to exchange arbitrary IOU's among gateways, but why would you want to do that?

Consider that Bed Bath and Beyond might put Mattresses out on the Ripple system, and they would be a mattress gateway. If a user in Ripple purchases a mattress IOU with USD they could swap out the mattress IOU for an equivalent amount of Rubles.

Now we have a bizarre setup where one gateway holds a Mattress IOU -Likely in Russia- they most assuredly don't want.

Even if you limit Ripple to only currencies, you have the same problem. Gateways do not necessarily want to hold IOU's from other Gateways. Other gateways may (and will) default, leaving other Gateways holding a bag of worthless currency IOU's.
But even if they don't default, Gateways have an incentive to dump as much IOU's in Ripple as they possible can and make redemption as hard they can get away with, because they directly benefit from IOU's that are never redeemed.

It directly perverts competition among business from being fast and efficient, to being as slow and inefficient as they can get away with.

Ripple fails through and through, and cannot be fixed.

Most people that use Bitcoin hate Ripple because of the dishonesty of labelling themselves "open source" when they clearly aren't, as well as the centralized nature of the XRP currency.

I "hate" Ripple because it doesn't work and can't work, it's a waste of time and resources, and despite many people pointing out the basic economics that destroy Ripple, people are still buying into it and the only response we get from OpenCoin is handwaving.

Edit: Grammar/Wording
375  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world on: September 05, 2013, 02:11:04 PM
The solution I offer: We must regulate ourselves and be at least as responsible as traditional banks are now. This would mean we will have to keep track of whatever records/pseudo-identities necessary to help in whatever investigation.
First of all, that's not a solution, and secondly, the pseudo-problem you're trying to solve is not under the scope of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a currency, not a surveillance protocol. So the improvements on Bitcoin should be made in the direction of the former and not the direction of the latter.

It is not the responsibility of users of currency to facilitate the investigations of third parties. Though I reject the idea that anyone should assist the investigations of any presumed authority that claims to be a "monopoly on violence."*

For the same reason I reject the idea that a fully anonymous Bitcoin is "less responsible" than a pseudonymous Bitcoin.

The records that participants voluntarily keep are for their use only, and exist to prevent fraud and extortion, not to hold people accountable for transactions deemed unethical by the local oligarchy's inquisitors.

It is further beyond ridiculous to want to avoid bribes to oligarchs because you fear that bribery will cause them to abuse power. Even if you naively thought politicians would be beneficent rulers without the influence of bribery, the political structure of governing cannot be cured of the ignorance that causes the majority of the damage.

If you doubt this, consider the knowledge that politicians of the world possess. Name the politician that is a professional in the fields of medicine, road construction, gumball manufacturing, carpentry, and aeronautics. Name for me one politician for whom it cannot be said is an intellectual infant in the vast majority of all fields he claims to be arbiter of.

If any particular oligarchy is indistinguishable from a mob of infants deciding on arbitrary matters, then it hardly matters if their intentions are good or evil. Their actions can only be inept, heavy-handed, short sighted, and destructive.

There will always be Luddite puerile power mad oligarchs in the world, that's not Bitcoin's problem.

*Barry Soetoro Jr
376  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: TradeFortress VERY untrustworthy, owes me 10.15 BTC, possibly others. on: August 15, 2013, 07:34:59 PM
Dumbfruit is a TF sockpuppet btw, I recognize his style.
I guess we're kinda similar... We both don't double space after a period.

Other than that, he's way more professional, and tends to write less.

When I first got here I called out BitEnsure as a ponzi scheme, and I looked at BitLenders thinking I was going to find the same thing, but there wasn't anything I could fault him with.

There have been quite a few scam accusations but his accusers tend to be vindictive melodramatic adolescents that never prove their point, or never have a point to begin with. So I bought a CD at CoinLenders.

Hopefully I judged correctly, but at any rate it has nothing to do with my thoughts about Ripple. You said that you're suppose to only trust people you trust IRL, but not even that can be trusted.
377  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: TradeFortress VERY untrustworthy, owes me 10.15 BTC, possibly others. on: August 15, 2013, 12:37:53 PM
Oh I read it, believe me. As soon as they remove "liquidity provider" from the system entirely they will fix it.

People seem to forget that Ripple was around long before OpenCoin got their hands on it. Ripple doesn't require cryptocurrencies to do it's thing, but it didn't work. Why? Because The core concept of Ripple is entirely unworkable.

They pretend like Ripple just automates the way people treat each-other in the real world, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Look at the assumptions Ripple makes;

1.) If I trust my brother, it must mean I trust my brother's debtors.

2.) Debt is time invariant. It assumes that money today is just as valuable as money at any given future date.

(As a combination of one and two, it assumes that all debt with the same principal are interchangeable.)

3.) The principal of the maximum loan I would give accurately reflects trust. Without interest, terms, or collateral.

4.) There is no moral hazard involved when a "liquidity provider" can always renege on it's debts and allow another "liquidity provider" fulfill it's obligations.

5.) Having more debt than currency is a good idea.

Then consider all the things they try to do to fix this problem;
-Beginning of list-
-They recommend that no one trust anyone but the gateways.
-End of list-

If that isn't a laughable admission of defeat, I don't know what is. There is no way to make Ripple work without automating the subjective valuation of debt between people, which just can't be done with today's technology (And maybe never.).

Webr3 was pompous and refused to believe that TradeFortress was showing everyone a real problem in Ripple. He lost bitcoins, and then TradeFortress returned what he lost, at which point he promptly did exactly the same thing and lost his bitcoins again. He gets a few laughs, but very little sympathy from me.
378  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: ► ► ►HashFast Endorsement on: August 15, 2013, 03:42:33 AM
"significantly significantly less"
I'm pretty sure that's a typo. Or are you trying to stress "significantly"?
Sounds wonky..
379  Other / Politics & Society / Re: WTF is wrong with America? on: August 15, 2013, 03:11:31 AM
380  Other / Politics & Society / Re: WTF is wrong with America? on: August 13, 2013, 10:49:30 PM
All else equal, I'd prefer an MD to someone without the formal education,
Me too! My point about education is that despite popular belief there can be "too much". People treat education like houses during the bubble, "Shovel as much money in as you want into this thing and you'll always get more out than you put in." Which is a fallacy. You may call it the "DumbFruit Fallacy" if you like.

A problem with enforcing some standard onto doctors is that we end up with a system where people can't get a doctor at all. So certify the heck out of them, and be judgemental and prudent, as long as it's in private hands I'm all for it.

I definitely agree that formal education can show serious persistence and dedication, but I'm critical of the... Wait a minute... That awkward moment when...
You guys strayed wide off topic again, the question remains: Why is the US raping the rest of the world and how long are they gonna take it.
The US is the biggest bully out here. As long as they're the biggest bully, they will bully the rest. As soon as they're not the biggest bully, the next biggest bully will be annoying.

People will put up with it as long as they're not hungry.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!