about alternate chains vs using bitcoin blockchain

[coinrevo]

bluemanie, you should open up your own threads, instead of writing about your proposals in several other threads. Also it is obvious to me, that everyone who works on these P2P models has never worked much with orderbooks. because then you realize it does not make sense for the most important markets (stock market, bond market, fx market, commodities market). also, all these empty promises. first right the code, then tell people about what you've done. making wild claims isn't useful. same thing as bitshares & mastershares & OT & etherum. all talk, no code. because it just doesn't work.

[bluemeanie1]

bluemanie, you should open up your own threads, instead of writing about your proposals in several other threads. Also it is obvious to me, that everyone who works on these P2P models has never worked much with orderbooks. because then you realize it does not make sense for the most important markets (stock market, bond market, fx market, commodities market). also, all these empty promises. first right the code, then tell people about what you've done. making wild claims isn't useful. same thing as bitshares & mastershares & OT & etherum. all talk, no code. because it just doesn't work.

I did.  the mods moved them to 'newbie' section, even though NO ONE has ever suggested anything theoretically wrong with it(quite the opposite).  I get hits every day to the whitepapers on the http://altchain.org web site.

I do disagree re. what is the best approach.  You can make code that performs some function, but this doesnt prove it is secure or economically viable.  There is at least one software system that attempts to take your money claiming to be distributed exchange that is anything but.  I want to avoid this perception as a scam, and there are many scams in this particular area.

I will follow up with you in email.

[Sukrim]

Regarding Ripple,  It's also somewhat deceptive.  They made a few tricky moves regarding their open source status.  It's a commercial product and their business model was to sell and market XRPs(similar to Mastercoin).  At one point I asked: If Ripple is open source, why can't I just issue a new set of XRPs?  XRP2.0?  Soon afterwards the project seemed to have faded out of existence.  Ripple also has virtually NOTHING to do with the original ideas associated with this name.  It's all part of the Googleplex mega-complex, which I will never(and probably can never) be a part of due to my outspoken opinions on the surveillance machine they are running under the guise of 'entrepreneurship' and 'startups'.  Thanks to St. Snowden I can now say these things without being branded a mentally insane schizophrenic(which some people in these circles have already tried to do).

You can just fire up rippled and will immediately have 100 billion XRP at your disposal. Just like running bitcoind with a non-Satoshi block chain/genesis block however, no other server will accept these.

You are free to fork Ripple, the only requisite (similar to Bitcoin) is that you change the name and logo.

unless something has changed, you are only free to fork the CLIENT.  Secondly it is unclear what sorts of patent protections there are surrounding Ripple.

It's not a community project, it's a commercial project.

https://github.com/ripple <-- the server is called rippled, it is open source since September last year.

You can just ask RippleLabs about pending patents (I'm unaware of any - and releasing source code before potential patents are granted would also not have been a smart move by them...), the only thing that is protected as far as I know is the "Ripple" brand and logo.

[bluemeanie1]

Regarding Ripple,  It's also somewhat deceptive.  They made a few tricky moves regarding their open source status.  It's a commercial product and their business model was to sell and market XRPs(similar to Mastercoin).  At one point I asked: If Ripple is open source, why can't I just issue a new set of XRPs?  XRP2.0?  Soon afterwards the project seemed to have faded out of existence.  Ripple also has virtually NOTHING to do with the original ideas associated with this name.  It's all part of the Googleplex mega-complex, which I will never(and probably can never) be a part of due to my outspoken opinions on the surveillance machine they are running under the guise of 'entrepreneurship' and 'startups'.  Thanks to St. Snowden I can now say these things without being branded a mentally insane schizophrenic(which some people in these circles have already tried to do).

You can just fire up rippled and will immediately have 100 billion XRP at your disposal. Just like running bitcoind with a non-Satoshi block chain/genesis block however, no other server will accept these.

You are free to fork Ripple, the only requisite (similar to Bitcoin) is that you change the name and logo.

unless something has changed, you are only free to fork the CLIENT.  Secondly it is unclear what sorts of patent protections there are surrounding Ripple.

It's not a community project, it's a commercial project.

https://github.com/ripple <-- the server is called rippled, it is open source since September last year.

You can just ask RippleLabs about pending patents (I'm unaware of any - and releasing source code before potential patents are granted would also not have been a smart move by them...), the only thing that is protected as far as I know is the "Ripple" brand and logo.

aside from this there were a number of other criticisms of Ripple floating around.

I mean it's related to Google, whom it is quite clear cannot be trusted with anything, certainly not to create a p2p money technology.

[Sukrim]

The only one I'm aware of is ripplescam.org, written by TradeFortress (well, see for yourself how he ended up himself...).

Google is not directly involved in Ripple, it's Google Ventures (which are independent from Google itself) who invested in RippleLabs. They also invested in the Bitcoin exchange project "Buttercoin" by the way, also e.g. Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin core developer and a great asset to Bitcoin works at Google. If you do mistrust them, that's your personal opinion, not a universal fact.

Nice try of trying to derail this thread further ("aside from this"... instead of "Sorry, I was wrong"), I'm outta here to not bump your promotion of your website even more.

[bluemeanie1]

The only one I'm aware of is ripplescam.org, written by TradeFortress (well, see for yourself how he ended up himself...).

Google is not directly involved in Ripple, it's Google Ventures (which are independent from Google itself) who invested in RippleLabs. They also invested in the Bitcoin exchange project "Buttercoin" by the way, also e.g. Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin core developer and a great asset to Bitcoin works at Google. If you do mistrust them, that's your personal opinion, not a universal fact.

Nice try of trying to derail this thread further ("aside from this"... instead of "Sorry, I was wrong"), I'm outta here to not bump your promotion of your website even more.

not sure if that's an accusation or a threat?  either way it seems pretty lame.

and I'm not sure everyone views Mike Hearn as a stellar asset to Bitcoin.  Seems his idea of 'blacklisting' addresses was unanimously rejected.

Google is the center for all the internet spying, Snowden has shown whats going on- game is over.

"Don't be evil."  LOL.

[markm]

Open Transactions has been working for about a couple of years now, and I have yet to have any accounts in it go out of balance.

It works rather well in fact.

-MarkM-

[coinrevo]

That's like saying: I have a webserver where I trade with 5 friends and it works well. At scale many things change. Moving 5$ around is not the same as investing live changing money in a stock market. OT makes the same claims as the others, that you can produce stocks and bonds out of thin air. There is a reason legal systems exist, they mostly work to the advantage of market participants. OT is better than master-/bitshares in that is not P2P, which for public market good can't work.

In terms of the impossibility of scalable P2P exchanges one has to think about the timestamp of each message (=transaction) in the system, and how messages are ordered on that basis. In bitcoin A makes a tx to B and C to D, and both tx are independent, so one does not have to enforce time order. the blockchain does not allow complete time order. People forget bitcoin starts with a timestamp server. The fact that time order of messages can be neglected to some degree is very important.

[markm]

Yeah it is true that Open Transactions has not reached the optimisation stage yet.

It is not fast and has not yet even tried to be fast.

I had no intention though of trying to support high frequency trading, quite the opposite in fact.

The intent is rather that the scale factor markets be used, and I also have all assets denominated in integers which also is intended to favour large scale trades over trivial little trades. If you want to deal with less than whole bitcoins use some smaller value coin, if you want to buy one at a time then hopefully that small a scale retail scale kind of market is more expensive than if you buy things by the ten or hundred or thousand or million or whatever.

It was mostly intended for when nations / civilisations / corps etc wanted to do major international or intercorporation trades at scale, not for the thousands of customers who walk into individual branches to buy a few coins or notes to access directly themselves.

When a branch runs out of some coin or other it'd turn to the scale markets to pick itself up another 100,000 or 10,000 or 1,000 or whatever scale batch to re-stock, that kind of idea.

Or when international trade resulted in two nations each holding more of the other's currency than they liked to they'd do a big trade to get back to a more normal level.

You would actually need and want the overall market to be distributed, so that each broker's customers buy at that broker's server or bank of servers, that broker re-stocks from a server that deals in larger scale blocks of stock or coin or porkbellies or whatever commodity/share/bond/coin/etc, which in turn restocks from one that specialises in even larger scale blocks and so on.

Kind of like if you don't want to buy something by the fleetload go to a place that sells individual shiploads, if you want even punier lot sizes go to a place that deals in container-loads, if that is too rich for your blood find a place that sells by the pallet, etc.

If our server deals in shiploads, we don't want to waste our bandwidth etc etc on children walking in looking to buy a gram...

...Especially if that would result in one of our shiploads being short a gram...

-MarkM-