Could it be other people's exchanges on the markets are Rippling through you?
These can only result in one of two things happening: 1) IOUs that you used to hold from one issuer you now hold from a different issuer in the same currency. (And unless you do something very unusual, in the same amount.) 2) Offers that you placed are taken or partially taken. Your balance in the currency/issuer you are selling will decrease and the one you are buying will increase. To be honest, I don't fully understand how the client presents offers. There's an open issue to make it clearer. |
|
|
|
I'VE CHANGE MY MIND! Hope the new one works better for you. |
|
|
|
Community credit ought to kill most currencies, if it worked. Not just bitcoins, not just XRP. All the fiats too.
There are a lot of challenges to making this happen and I have to admit it's a long shot and will take a long time under the best imaginable scenario, but it could radically change the way people think about money. |
|
|
|
How are they prevented from double spends?
See this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145558.msg1545061#msg1545061This is the key part: Using my (overly simplified) agreement room analogy, it works like this:
1) There's a room where everyone agrees on the last closed ledger.
2) If you want to disagree, you can, but you must leave the room to do so.
3) If you want to know what the current ledger is, you walk in and ask everyone in the room.
4) If you want to perform a transaction, you read it out loud. Everyone honest agrees that it's valid.
5) If there are any transactions that someone in the room believes should be applied to the last closed ledger, they attempt to obtain a consensus on them.
6) When a consensus is reached, the consensus transactions are applied to the last closed ledger forming a new last closed ledger.
7) Everyone agrees on the new last closed ledger.
8 ) We go back to step 5. Any transactions believed still valid but that didn't get into the consensus transaction set for some reason should now be voted in by every honest person.
9) If people appear to be acting in ways that don't make sense, such as voting no on transactions that have no reason not to be included or failing to validate the correct ledger, you ignore them.
10) Your top priority is to enforce the rules of the room. Your second priority is to achieve consensus. |
|
|
|
For those interested in getting a better idea of what Ripple transaction and ledger structures look like, I've made available a recent ledger with all account information, a transaction as formed, and a transaction as applied into a ledger. They're all in the JSON format that the client uses. http://goo.gl/GfoZW |
|
|
|
there are definitely orders being created automatically somehow. Just woke up (so I did definitely not do anything in my ripple client four hours ago, I was asleep):  It is a client bug. There's a fix in the repository, but I don't think it has been tested and pushed to the public server. You're seeing offers that involve you in some indirect way (say, offering or requesting your IOUs) and the client is telling you that you placed them. |
|
|
|
|
The only argument I've ever heard for how ASICs could put downward pricing pressure on Bitcoins is that lots of miners who hold all the Bitcoins they mine will instead choose to sell some of them to get the money to upgrade to ASICs. I think this is a valid argument, but the big question is how significant this will be and whether it will be outweighed by other ways ASICs could put upward pricing pressure on Bitcoins. There, my crystal ball is not so clear.
|
|
|
|
I grant trust to molecular with 100 usd, but I have only 0.5 in my ripple acc now  You sure you want to do that? That means that if you ever hold USD in the system, molecular or someone else can take them from you and in exchange give you molecular IOUs, which he is under no obligation to honor. |
|
|
|
|
There are 985 funded accounts, 84 of which hold 1M XRP or more. Here they are in order of amount held:
rJ6VE6L87yaVmdyxa9jZFXSAdEFSoTGPbE rfbKLd1VLB3o6fpkhCJexckArjoMmBm2wG
rD1jovjQeEpvaDwn9wKaYokkXXrqo4D23x rQfZVsSZowMyCghrCmcpaATkDj1vBb94Wh
r3PDtZSa5LiYp1Ysn1vMuMzB59RzV3W9QH rHzWtXTBrArrGoLDixQAgcSD2dBisM19fF
rnT9PFSfAnWyj2fd7D5TCoCyCYbK4n356A rnKrcWK6asr5doJHyhJNJGvnQr78PEQnCY
rDa8TxBdCfokqZyyYEpGMsiKziraLtyPe8 rPrz9m9yaXT94nWbqEG2SSe9kdU4Jo1CxA
rJR7gjNe3DpJ7kpB4CHBxjDKfwVMpTKPpj rJYMACXJd1eejwzZA53VncYmiK2kZSBxyD
rBY8EZDiCNMjjhrC7SCfaGr2PzGWtSntNy rHrSTVSjMsZKeZMenkpeLgHGvY5svPkRvR
r3AthBf5eW4b9ujLoXNHFeeEJsK3PtJDea r3WjZU5LKLmjh8ff1q2RiaPLcUJeSU414x
r43ksW5oFnW7FMjQXDqpYGJfUwmLan9dGo ramPgJkA1LSLevMg2Yrs1jWbqPTsSbbYHQ
rfceigRfSpAjWR6LH1L7YsooWKMqM5Pr6J rGqM8S5GnGwiEdZ6QRm1GThiTAa89tS86E
rhuCtPvq6jJeYF1S7aEmAcE5iM8LstSrrP rKZig5RFv5yWAqMi9PtC5akkGpNtn3pz8A
rLBwqTG5ErivwPXGaAGLQzJ2rr7ZTpjMx7 rMNKtUq5Z5TB5C4MJnwzUZ3YP7qmMGog3y
rNWzcdSkXL28MeKaPwrvR3i7yU6XoqCiZc rPFPa8AjKofbPiYNtYqSWxYA4A9Eqrf9jG
rpGaCyHRYbgKhErgFih3RdjJqXDsYBouz3 rwoE5PxARitChLgu6VrMxWBHN7j11Jt18x
r4HabKLiKYtCbwnGG3Ev4HqncmXWsCtF9F r3tBicjER6dUFsHPPzvbVdA89V9j2QXqBH
rpWrw1a5rQjZba1VySn2jichsPuB4GVnoC r3kmLJN5D28dHuH8vZNUZpMC43pEHpaocV
rLeRkwDgbPVeSakJ2uXC2eqR8NLWMvU3kN rsRpe4UHx6HB32kJJ3FjB6Q1wUdY2wi3xi
rBQQwVbHrkf8TEcW4h4MtE6EUyPQedmtof rGow3MKvbQJvuzPPP4vEoohGmLLZ5jXtcC
rKMhQik9qdyq8TDCYT92xPPRnFtuq8wvQK rUvEG9ahtFRcdZHi3nnJeFcJWhwXQoEkbi
rLqQ62u51KR3TFcewbEbJTQbCuTqsg82EY rhWcbzUj9SVJocfHGLn58VYzXvoVnsU44u
rnj8sNUBCw3J6sSstY9QDDoncnijFwH7Cs rB5TihdPbKgMrkFqrqUC3yLdE8hhv4BdeY
r8TR1AeB1RDQFabM6i8UoFsRF5basqoHJ r4n7a6KzuUkbTz9m7UvzDgBPvbD8nTWu4J
rHDcKZgR7JDGQEe9r13UZkryEVPytV6L6F rUf6pynZ8ucVj1jC9bKExQ7mb9sQFooTPK
rB59DESmVnTwXd2SCy1G4ReVkP5UM7ZYcN rDCJ39V8yW39Ar3Pod7umxnrp24jATE1rt
rf7phSp1ABzXhBvEwgSA7nRzWv2F7K5VM7 r43mpEMKY1cVUX8k6zKXnRhZMEyPU9aHzR
r9ssnjg97d86PxMrjVsCAX1xE9qg8czZTu rppWupV826yJUFd2zcpRGSjQHnAHXqe7Ny
r44CNwMWyJf4MEA1eHVMLPTkZ1LSv4Bzrv r476293LUcDqtjiSGJ5Dh44J1xBCDWeX3
rD6tdgGHG7hwGTA6P39aE7W89fbqxXRjzk rDfrrrBJZshSQDvfT2kmL9oUBdish52unH
rH8MH25kFERugNYA5LtCV9tp53zpWngcBV rhgovzKYmuVaRB6xnVxGL4mGi6skxA31FN
rhmwTvfuTZ1KYyXFtKLUGyB3L1JXNzPRY4 rhREXVHV938ToGkdJQ9NCYEY4x8kSEtjna
rJE8YtJnAyFSVvjtEhPCFngVC4hWmZfRcn rLt5hnUwhTPfCNBmJFLb5jFNiKpUkyKi1h
rMErERn4aHWmLT9NU2muvEpDg1vpRX11Z rMLnwJF3FGpGT5kuoQWkwSLQX9NQQkAHH4
rPNoY3puAWywNA5CEDxirZ2BDYHG5du8Xf rPoJNiCk7XSFLR28nH2hAbkYqjtMC3hK2k
rU1bPM4q2rVhC73F7znm7Lt5QnYzZsV35q rwAzZQgYHfrVYsRoUG1g4gpdKssPUEmNDP
rGRGYWLmSvPuhKm4rQV287PpJUgTB1VeD7 rUzSNPtxrmeSTpnjsvaTuQvF2SQFPFSvLn
rNRG8YAUqgsqoE5HSNPHTYqEGoKzMd7DJr rsjB6kHDBDUw7iB5A1EVDK1WmgmR6yFKpB
rBtVhMKcyiJJqyLTKqJdZSZrLEA5JAXjB1 rB6SbJ5gP8WM8io8Q9eXepHv4jijhHURLs
rhWnKQ79moM7wkk2b9RpufDzhbHw7YLc6d r9PbKbYisKN1DSwaZ7jp6ZsKmfk1yCFAAi
rJipRKjL3CNAvWWMNrbXW9sCvk66PBdyMv rDyLzAzyniahxpPLkNsLDSPZki6HZk6wV5
rhXSetHpayrrnjVAzVgtP4EVmpqMpMFUBt rn4o6i8BrwhwmyjLntKsW4DZnk76dZXocS
rNAbBQAd8zgfdRoUFvjeu582Nu7uQjsuhz rNGWsgk1MGdW12SWQ67hRhnvGfZ1M3cMxB
rp7gaQch2fiNQHDPrnPk9pG65e9cnv7g6X rstKSeB2Qx7zrwSkyc7X9Xm5nYTJqtL3iM
|
|
|
|
I'm also constantly having problems with currency exchange: order book does not update and wallet occasionally goes offline without any reason. Also, I added trust to bitstamp address but program keep asking me to add trust to the same address each time I attempt withdrawing to my ripple wallet. After refreshing webpage all goes to norm except if I wasn't cicked offline. All in last firefox, win7
These are the three issues that are at the top of my priority list. It will take us a few days to resolve as it requires both server and client changes that have to be coordinated. |
|
|
|
One question I had, can other people see how much trust you have extended to them?
Yes. All trust lines are public because other people can use them. All balances are public because other people can use them. |
|
|
|
Thanks Joel I'll see if I can still get my head around it from what you said there! As I do see my You've placed an order to sell BTC for XRP, selling .03 BTC for 10,000 XRP per BTC (that is, 300 XRP for your .03 BTC) now in "order book" so who see's this ? I'm assuming someone out there?
Anyone who looks at the order book will see. Anyone who tries to place a crossing offer will take it (assuming it is or becomes the best offer for that combination on the books). Assuming it's the best offer, anyone who tries to use XRP to pay Bitcoins to someone (possibly themselves) who accepts BitStamp Bitcoins will take it implicitly. Hahaha, YOU think? Aren't you one of the developers? Even the developers are confused...
I'm not a client guy. But I agree, it's confusing. |
|
|
|
Ummm who see's this and what does this mean?  Also, so Bitstamp has my trust I guess now what? I want to convert them into BTC/XRP... basically lost at this point lol  MY head is about to explode so lost and confused now ... We're working on making this display less confusing. I *think* it means that you've chosen to let BitStamp hold up to .1 BTC for you and it is currently holding .03 BTC for you (or, in IOU terms, your Ripple account holds an IOU from BitStamp for .03 BTC). You've placed an order to sell BTC for XRP, selling .03 BTC for 10,000 XRP per BTC (that is, 300 XRP for your .03 BTC). One thing we're working on is allowing you to mouse over confusing things and get a plain English display of them. https://github.com/rippleFoundation/ripple-client/issues/200 |
|
|
|
Ok, to narrow the focus of my question a little.. I start up a gateway and pre warn everyone that signs up that I will only be open for business for 3 months.. I dont want to sell the business, just to close it down. I get 100 users and send them IOUs. Those 100 users trade the IOUs onto another 1000 users..
When it comes time to close down, the original 100 who signed up are well aware that they need to redeem their IOUs before the closing deadline, but the other 1000 users have no idea, and I have no way to contact them or to force them to give back the IOUs.
So even though I would like to close up shop with zero IOUs outstanding I have no way to get them back.. I have no option but to walk away leaving some people holding the bag??
You could set a flag on your account to only allow people who you approve to hold your IOUs. That would avoid the scenario entirely. You could have a simple click through people go to in order to agree to your terms and gain the right to hold your IOUs. (Your IOUs can still ripple through people who aren't allowed to hold them.) But in the scenario you explained, you're not really leaving anyone holding any bag. You have no obligation to someone who holds your IOU other than those imposed by the system, which you can't prevent. They will be harmed by the likely drop in value of the IOU, but that's the risk they chose to take when they agreed to accept your IOUs without a redemption agreement. Absent a redemption agreement, you have no guarantee that an IOU won't decrease in value or become worthless. This is a decision you must make intelligently when you extend trust. You can't tell if someone is trustworthy or untrustworthy inside the Ripple system, you have to look at the real world. |
|
|
|
Simple Scenario:
I am a merchant, accepting RPX for my goods.
You buy a crate of canned Mmmmmmmh.... for 140.000RPX
I need a gateway to instantly turn this around into BTC, send to my payment provider and THEN it's considered "paid".
All thus hubbub about trusted ripplebitcointokens from IOUs is way to WTF.
That's exactly how Ripple works. That's also how banks work. You have a bank account. I have a bank account. My bank owes me money. I send you a check, that check makes my bank owe me less money and your bank owe you more money. You consider me to have paid you because I made your bank owe you more money and you trust your bank. You can withdraw the money however you arranged with your bank. By some magic we don't have to think about, our banks settle it. |
|
|
|
Right, but all of this either requires a central authority or trading on the bitcoin block chain. I don't see how this allows you to trade off the blockchain without a central authority. I may not understand what do you mean by "trading on the block chain" By trading on the block chain I mean that to transfer an asset, you must perform an operation on the Bitcoin block chain. That's what we want to avoid because it requires access to a Bitcoin server, takes many tens of minutes for confirmations, requires some authority to hold the keys for the Bitcoin transactions, and so on. but if I understand it right then you may not be aware of what does coloring really mean? Colored bitcoins can be transfered between different owners just like ordinary bitcoins. There is no need for a central authority to keep transaction records. To check whether a transaction or transaction output is of color RED we need just to find whether we can trace it back to the genesis transaction (the IPO of the issuer). Transaction is of color RED if all of its inputs come from transactions of color RED. Bitcoins of color RED will turn into ordinary bitcoins if they are mixed with anything but color RED. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106449.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114571.0That doesn't help you. You still have to trade on the blockchain. The point was to make it possible to trade bitcoins off the blockchain. To think about the problem another way, try it like this: Suppose I want to "deposit" namecoins into the Bitcoin blockchain, trade them around with Bitcoin transactions, and then let their final owners "withdraw" them from the Bitcoin blockchain back into namecoins. How can I do that? (And the short answer is, without a central authority or everyone deciding who to trust to hold the namecoin keys for themselves and making them non-fungible, you can't so far as we know.) |
|
|
|
And what happens with small world topologies like this: *full-mesh of 32 validators* ------- Link X ------- *full-mesh of 32 validators*
(e.g. two large fully meshed clusters, with a single or few links between them— typical of social graphs) when wallet loaded on two different computers makes conflicting transactions at the same time, one which is sent to one cluster, one to the other cluster? What happens in the same case when "Link X" is down (either being dos attacked or random maintenance)? When it stays down long enough for several finalization cycles where each cluster has seen unanimous support of its respective conflicted transaction, and never heard of the conflict? Can the inconsistency ever be resolved? How? When it's resolved will the losing half of the nodes be automatically considered no longer trustworthy? It's not clear whether you mean a mesh of trust or a mesh of network connectivity. If you mean a mesh of network connectivity, the netsplit detection scheme should solve this. You will see that you are getting validations from half or fewer of your validators and know you might be in the minority side of a network split. The network will be broken, but that's as it must be until the split resolves. If you mean a mesh of trust with link X being some validator who trusts validators in both groups, then link X fail to achieve consensus and bow out. But that's as it should be -- X is misconfigured into two distinct networks. The two distinct networks can now proceed in peace. Presumably, nobody who only trusts validators on the left want to achieve consensus with those on the right, so it shouldn't matter. You need about 10% overlap for the system to not be slow to converge or to fail to achieve consensus. If that ever happens, it will be clearly known to all and it will require manual intervention to fix. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, if it's so hard for the nerds of bitcointalk to grok this, will Joe Public ever manage to?
As a payment system, it shouldn't be that hard once the steps are reduced. As a community/private credit system ... the jury is still out. |
|
|
|
You don't trade on the block chain!
You have to. If you don't trade on the block chain, then the original offeror retains control over the asset, defeating the entire point. I'll just re-quote: By the original design bitcoins are fungible, acting as a neutral medium of exchange. However, by carefully tracking the origin of a given bitcoin, it is possible to “color” a set of coins to distinguish it from the rest. These coins can then have special properties supported by either an issuing agent or a Schelling point, and have value independent of the face value of the underlying bitcoins. Such colored bitcoins can be used for alternative currencies, commodity certificates, smart property, and other financial instruments such as stocks and bonds. Right, but all of this either requires a central authority or trading on the bitcoin block chain. I don't see how this allows you to trade off the blockchain without a central authority. And the proof is this simple: The offeror always retains control over the colored coins unless you trade on the blockchain. So you either need to trade on the blockchain or you need some central authority to decide which offerors can be trusted. (Otherwise, you just wind up with the same solution Ripple has -- each user decides for themselves which offerors to trust, Bitcoins aren't fungible, and you have to find a payment path.) How does colored coins help? I don't get it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
