Why don't the exchanges get together and fork Ripple and use it.

[tokeweed]

Here's a list of all the exchanges http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/markets/info

It might be a good idea for some, if not all of them to get together, fork Ripple and form a gateway system for trading and transacting in a network that the exchanges themselves control.

It will make moving crypto/fiat a whole lot easier from exchange to exchange.  

What do you guys think?

[TaunSew]

Forgetting about all the investor's money into Ripple, which subsequently makes it a closed loop snowball effect.  If you control 98%+ of the supply and have $millions of investors money, you can manipulate left, right and center until the cows come home (since volume in crypto is very small and most of it is ping-ponging among bots).

[tokeweed]

The thing is to build a network that all the exchanges can participate in and have a degree of control if they do decide to participate.  Transactions from one exchange to another would be way faster.  I get that the exchanges are wary of being a gateway on Ripple.  But if they get together, they could fork it and build their own system that they themselves control.

[Sukrim]

1) How would they pay for network fees (= who gets the forkXRPs)?
2) How would they ensure a healthy validator network structure?

These are the 2 main remaining questions for mainline Ripple too...

[robbo389]

Most exchanges are competing with each other and probably wouldn't cooperate. What happens when exchanges go bad, like Mintpal?

[Sukrim]

This would have no major impact if they were using Ripple (or a fork of it).

I don't see how the lack of an independent fork is the thing that keeps exchanges from using Ripple as is... mainline Ripple however might soon have more banks, Western Union etc. on its ledger, so an inter-exchange only Ripple fork might not be very popular to begin with (and not very resilient to legal pressure, depending on how it is run).

[tokeweed]

1) How would they pay for network fees (= who gets the forkXRPs)?
2) How would they ensure a healthy validator network structure?

These are the 2 main remaining questions for mainline Ripple too...

Is running a Ripple-esque network not feasable if decentralization was the aim?

What about the new Stellar consensus protocol the SDF is working on?

[tokeweed]

This would have no major impact if they were using Ripple (or a fork of it).

I don't see how the lack of an independent fork is the thing that keeps exchanges from using Ripple as is... mainline Ripple however might soon have more banks, Western Union etc. on its ledger, so an inter-exchange only Ripple fork might not be very popular to begin with (and not very resilient to legal pressure, depending on how it is run).

Probably because Ripple Labs controls most of the XRP.  Ripple is great and all, that's why there could be more benefit for the exchanges themsleves to fork it and build their own Ripple-esque network and divide the fork-XRP among themselves to give away to their users.

edit:  Imagine if (just if) Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCe, BTC China and all the others joined together and built their own Ripple-esque network.  I think there's a good chance it will be very popular.

[Sukrim]

Nice double-post...

1) How would they pay for network fees (= who gets the forkXRPs)?
2) How would they ensure a healthy validator network structure?

These are the 2 main remaining questions for mainline Ripple too...

Is running a Ripple-esque network not feasable if decentralization was the aim?

What about the new Stellar consensus protocol the SDF is working on?

Sure it is, they can just run mainline Ripple as easily though.

It only renames a few components (UNL = something something slice) and seems to be a nearly 1:1 copy of Ripple Consensus. It is nice that they expose the UNLs to the network but apparently these are not checked or used to verify trustworthyness anyways by other nodes, so all that is left is a more "bucket based" approach than with Ripple, which rather wants to approve sets of transactions in fixed maximum intervals instead of moving forward in all undisputed areas while waiting in disputed markets.

This would have no major impact if they were using Ripple (or a fork of it).

I don't see how the lack of an independent fork is the thing that keeps exchanges from using Ripple as is... mainline Ripple however might soon have more banks, Western Union etc. on its ledger, so an inter-exchange only Ripple fork might not be very popular to begin with (and not very resilient to legal pressure, depending on how it is run).

Probably because Ripple Labs controls most of the XRP.  Ripple is great and all, that's why there could be more benefit for the exchanges themsleves to fork it and build their own Ripple-esque network and divide the fork-XRP among themselves to give away to their users.

edit:  Imagine if (just if) Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCe, BTC China and all the others joined together and built their own Ripple-esque network.  I think there's a good chance it will be very popular.

I wouldn't want to use a ledger run by Bitcoin exchanges exclusively, but then again who knows... apparently e.g. Bitfinex even uses Tether (which is more or less a gateway built on Counterparty built on Bitcoin). Inter-exchange fast path payments are a years old concept which was first commercialy tried by Charlie Shrem's company Bitinstant... well, it didn't end well to say the least.

Gateways don't need to care about XRP prices or distribution, for the price of a hamburger/coffee you can get enough XRP to run a gateway almost indefinitely from a current perspective.

[tokeweed]

Still..  I personally would like to see the exchanges work together and build a network on their own.  It has never been done before in crypto, where every exchange is connected in one network.  And it's a waste that they're not using the technology (they could always fork it if they want)...  Especially BTC focused exchanges, it would certainly help the Bitcoin blockchain by having off chain transactions an option. It could also possibly help solve scalability problems.

[robrigo]

Exchanges can use BitShares DEX to issue their own IOUs and move their orderbooks onto the blockchain. They basically would become gateways using the decentralized exchange.

[marcetin]

Exchanges can use BitShares DEX to issue their own IOUs and move their orderbooks onto the blockchain. They basically would become gateways using the decentralized exchange.

Interesting.
In that case they will all have the same orderbook? So the price some asset will be the same on all exchanges in the blockchain?

[robrigo]

Exchanges can use BitShares DEX to issue their own IOUs and move their orderbooks onto the blockchain. They basically would become gateways using the decentralized exchange.

Interesting.
In that case they will all have the same orderbook? So the price some asset will be the same on all exchanges in the blockchain?

BitShares lets you trade 2 types of assets: user issued assets and market pegged assets. Each exchange could issue a user issued asset as an IOU for their assets (IOUs are basically what you have when you hold crypto on a centralized exchange) and trade against other exchange's IOUs or market pegged stablecoins like bitUSD, bitCNY, and bitGOLD. On BitShares you can trade any asset against any other asset... but not all of the markets are liquid.

So you might see coinbaseUSD, bitstampUSD, btceDOGE, etc. trading on bitshares. The cool thing about this is that each participant still controls the private keys to their balances, and they can also be sure that the orderbooks aren't being manipulated behind the scenes.

More reading:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/Benefits-of-Being-a-BitShares-Gateway/
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/05/The-Future-of-Crypto-Currency-Exchanges/
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/29/How-BitShares-Prevents-Front-Running/

[Miracal]

They are running on diffferent locations and have specific regulations to be complied with. They have different security measures applied. How could they be possible to be integrated together? Even it is possible in some scenarios such as some big exchange acquires another exchange falling in difficulty.  But it wouldn't chant that fact that they are still centralized exchange.

[lockshop11]

It might be a good idea for some, if not all of them to get together, fork Ripple and form a gateway system for trading and transacting in a network that the exchanges themselves control.

Ripple and its whole system is controlled by the third party. Its price is volatile. Many ppl try to avoid involving in it.

[tokeweed]

It might be a good idea for some, if not all of them to get together, fork Ripple and form a gateway system for trading and transacting in a network that the exchanges themselves control.

Ripple and its whole system is controlled by the third party. Its price is volatile. Many ppl try to avoid involving in it.

I do not think you understand.

[patmast3r]

1) How would they pay for network fees (= who gets the forkXRPs)?
2) How would they ensure a healthy validator network structure?

These are the 2 main remaining questions for mainline Ripple too...

1) First of all in Ripple nobody get's the fees. XRPs are being destroyed not re-destributed. Second if the exchanges run their own "internal" network then they don't need to worry about fees because they controll all of the forkXRPs and can split them up evenly.

2) Each exchange runs 1 validator which trusts the other exchanges validators. done.

[legit_chocolateface]

Here's a list of all the exchanges http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/markets/info

It might be a good idea for some, if not all of them to get together, fork Ripple and form a gateway system for trading and transacting in a network that the exchanges themselves control.

It will make moving crypto/fiat a whole lot easier from exchange to exchange.  

What do you guys think?

There are already few ripple forks, One chinese one gained the most traction but none will succeed without the kind of pull Ripple Labs has. They will be tuna against big sharks at Ripple Labs. For starters they own at least $500 million worth of "NON public" XRP. and, (it's speculated) a large portion of the "public" XRP too able to be used as bargaining chips with big banks and for other lobbying efforts. Prosper CEO is not coming to a community ripple fork because there is no money to be made.

Everyone using ripple gateways in past few days has received an email. in short: You can no longer access or use Ripple after August 30 2015 without submitting passports, licenses, address and other such information.  In fact the process seems more stringent than some banks. I guess after the trouble they faced for non performing adequate KYC is forcing them to crack down hard on users.  Funds can be frozen should users not be forthcoming with this information.

The same thing will occur to any quasi-centralized (as it will be) ripple gateway system where there is a legal pressure to identify actors and "operators". It doesn't matter if it comes through gateway endpoints or what, at some point it will happen, And through such a system you would identify every user of every exchange at once and in real time, unlike now where each exchange will begin to ask for this documentation as they mature. Therefore it may be more appropriate to use another solution: tether to move USD through exchange, although not exactly the same model already fulfills that goal of allowing exchanges to transfer value between each other like crypto. Community could alternatively fork Hyperledger to the same end.

Or there is also Symbiont, which interfaces Bitcoin or XCP Bitcoin assets or even XRP assets with ripple or ripple style ledgers. To transfer USD directly on the blockchain between participating exchanges without even touching ripple would certainly be possible, if required assets like JPY, EUR, CNY could in theory bounce between the two ledgers and back to exchanges.

Users can "Store" their fiat IOUS on the blockchain and even directly trade that fiat (bitfinexUSD, CircleUSD BtceRUB etc) p2p directly on the BITCOIN blockchain just using the Counterparty DEX or the ripple chain also by using symbiont without a central actor involvement until it came to redemption of the fiat. I think this is the obvious best approach. only needs a few trusted fiat issuers for backing this is exactly the model suggested above with the bitshares DEX except the bitshares DEX has a comparitively cumbersome approach and few major flaws when it comes to merging onto bitcoin chain

In due time both will be bridged in some ways with national market systems (NMS), ATS, ECN's and other liquidity pools or FX app like Metatrader. although pairs would likely be restricted.

[monsterer]

I think in general this is a good idea - what I would do would be this:

* fork ripple (new base currency, not XRP, obviously)
* change the consensus mechanism to POS, because it's currently trust based and only 20% collusion attack proof
* use this new version of ripple as a mechanism for altcoin only distributed exchange, no fiat allowed

Here is the major part:

* build a generic gateway node that liquidity providers (exchanges, interested 3rd parties) could sign up to run one of

That last part means you don't have to wait for altcoin exchanges to integrate with you, you can get running right away and when they are ready, they can join.

A fair amount of work, but probably a lot less than a project like B/C exchange.

edit: here is an answer to the question in the subject - they don't do this because the amount of work required exceeds the benefit they will get from doing so. You will need a 3rd party to do the majority of the work to reduce their costs of integrating.

[Sukrim]

1) How would they pay for network fees (= who gets the forkXRPs)?
2) How would they ensure a healthy validator network structure?

These are the 2 main remaining questions for mainline Ripple too...

1) First of all in Ripple nobody get's the fees. XRPs are being destroyed not re-destributed. Second if the exchanges run their own "internal" network then they don't need to worry about fees because they controll all of the forkXRPs and can split them up evenly.

2) Each exchange runs 1 validator which trusts the other exchanges validators. done.

1) I know they are destroyed, you need to own them before you can destroy them though. Customers of these exchanges will also want forkXRP to operate their own accounts, who should pay them? What if 5 exchanges start this project, get 20 billion forkXRP each and then a 6th one wants to join?

2) How do you ensure that this is really the case and some exchanges are not just claiming to have everybody on their UNL but are secretly forming a network that will kick your validator off?

change the consensus mechanism to POS, because it's currently trust based and only 20% collusion attack proof

Ripple's Consensus is 79.9...% collusion proof according to their technical whitepaper. if you have different claims, please write a more formal mathematical explanation.

Proof of Stake only works if the thing that is "at stake" is well distributed...

[CLains]

Exchanges can use BitShares DEX to issue their own IOUs and move their orderbooks onto the blockchain. They basically would become gateways using the decentralized exchange.

Interesting.
In that case they will all have the same orderbook? So the price some asset will be the same on all exchanges in the blockchain?

BitShares lets you trade 2 types of assets: user issued assets and market pegged assets. Each exchange could issue a user issued asset as an IOU for their assets (IOUs are basically what you have when you hold crypto on a centralized exchange) and trade against other exchange's IOUs or market pegged stablecoins like bitUSD, bitCNY, and bitGOLD. On BitShares you can trade any asset against any other asset... but not all of the markets are liquid.

So you might see coinbaseUSD, bitstampUSD, btceDOGE, etc. trading on bitshares. The cool thing about this is that each participant still controls the private keys to their balances, and they can also be sure that the orderbooks aren't being manipulated behind the scenes.

More reading:

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/18/Benefits-of-Being-a-BitShares-Gateway/
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/05/The-Future-of-Crypto-Currency-Exchanges/
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/29/How-BitShares-Prevents-Front-Running/

This. BitShares enables KYC/AML compliance for User-Issued Assets (UIAs -> IOUs), and when Exchanges becomes Gateways, liquidity on the decentralized exchange for bitAssets like bitUSD, bitCNY and bitGOLD will go through the roof as a counterparty-risk-free safe haven that grants users who want fiat, derivatives, stocks, etc. all the benefits of crypto.

[tokeweed]

Please be on topic.  We aren't talking about Bitshares.

[tokeweed]

Quoting Sukrim's last post below to avoid the topic getting sidetracked...

1) How would they pay for network fees (= who gets the forkXRPs)?
2) How would they ensure a healthy validator network structure?

These are the 2 main remaining questions for mainline Ripple too...

1) First of all in Ripple nobody get's the fees. XRPs are being destroyed not re-destributed. Second if the exchanges run their own "internal" network then they don't need to worry about fees because they controll all of the forkXRPs and can split them up evenly.

2) Each exchange runs 1 validator which trusts the other exchanges validators. done.

1) I know they are destroyed, you need to own them before you can destroy them though. Customers of these exchanges will also want forkXRP to operate their own accounts, who should pay them? What if 5 exchanges start this project, get 20 billion forkXRP each and then a 6th one wants to join?

2) How do you ensure that this is really the case and some exchanges are not just claiming to have everybody on their UNL but are secretly forming a network that will kick your validator off?

change the consensus mechanism to POS, because it's currently trust based and only 20% collusion attack proof

Ripple's Consensus is 79.9...% collusion proof according to their technical whitepaper. if you have different claims, please write a more formal mathematical explanation.

Proof of Stake only works if the thing that is "at stake" is well distributed...

[monsterer]

change the consensus mechanism to POS, because it's currently trust based and only 20% collusion attack proof

Ripple's Consensus is 79.9...% collusion proof according to their technical whitepaper. if you have different claims, please write a more formal mathematical explanation.

Proof of Stake only works if the thing that is "at stake" is well distributed...

https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf

Lastly we will show that the Ripple Protocol can
achieve these goals in the face of (n − 1)/5 failures which is not the strongest result in the literature...

...FaB Paxos [5] will tolerate (n − 1)/5
Byzantine failures in a network of n nodes, amounting
to a tolerance of up to 20% of nodes in the network
colluding maliciously

edit: I'm not saying this is bad per se, it is appropriate for ripple labs to be happy with this, because they work with the banking industry which is highly trust based already, but for altcoins, which are largely trustless, we need a different way.

[robrigo]

Please be on topic.  We aren't talking about Bitshares.

Not trying to jack your thread, but you asked for our thoughts. What can Ripple network do that bitshares is incapable of? Why must it be a fork of Ripple, if you can achieve the same end result of creating a gateway network between exchanges in a system that is more decentralized? Genuinely curious.

[monsterer]

Not trying to jack your thread, but you asked for our thoughts. What can Ripple network do that bitshares is incapable of? Why must it be a fork of Ripple, if you can achieve the same end result of creating a gateway network between exchanges in a system that is more decentralized? Genuinely curious.

Ripple is designed to be a auto-bridging network between liquidity providers. It will find you the best deal for your given order requirements, crossing several different liquidity providers in one atomic transaction, if that is the path of the best deal.

Bitshares has IOUs, and it has gateways, but it doesn't have the glue which joins them together in a seamless manor.

[Sukrim]

Ah, we were talking about the same thing in different ways:

Yes, if more than 20% of your UNL colludes against you, you'll see that there is something fishy going on and your node will stop validating. Only if 80+% of these nodes collude can they force an actual "bad" transaction upon you though sompared to 50+% of hashing power in PoW or 50+% of current staking equity in PoS.

[robrigo]

Ripple is designed to be a auto-bridging network between liquidity providers. It will find you the best deal for your given order requirements, crossing several different liquidity providers in one atomic transaction, if that is the path of the best deal.

Bitshares has IOUs, and it has gateways, but it doesn't have the glue which joins them together in a seamless manor.

Ah good point, thanks monsterer. Maybe that will be possible in the future.

[monsterer]

Ah, we were talking about the same thing in different ways:

Yes, if more than 20% of your UNL colludes against you, you'll see that there is something fishy going on and your node will stop validating. Only if 80+% of these nodes collude can they force an actual "bad" transaction upon you though sompared to 50+% of hashing power in PoW or 50+% of current staking equity in PoS.

I don't think that is correct. That 80% number you're referring to is the amount of agreement that nodes in the UNL must have before a given transaction is approved, not the amount of collusion the network is resistant to, which is a different metric.

since a transaction is only approved if 80% of the UNL of a server agrees with it, as long as 80% of the UNL is honest, no fraudulent transactions will be approved. Thus for a UNL of n nodes in the network, the consensus protocol will maintain correctness so long as: f ≤ (n−1)/5 (1) where f is the number Byzantine failures

[Spoetnik]

why ?

what would be the difference between any other premined / IPO coin ?

ripple is garbage I don't get it..

[Sukrim]

Ah, we were talking about the same thing in different ways:

Yes, if more than 20% of your UNL colludes against you, you'll see that there is something fishy going on and your node will stop validating. Only if 80+% of these nodes collude can they force an actual "bad" transaction upon you though sompared to 50+% of hashing power in PoW or 50+% of current staking equity in PoS.

I don't think that is correct. That 80% number you're referring to is the amount of agreement that nodes in the UNL must have before a given transaction is approved, not the amount of collusion the network is resistant to, which is a different metric.

since a transaction is only approved if 80% of the UNL of a server agrees with it, as long as 80% of the UNL is honest, no fraudulent transactions will be approved. Thus for a UNL of n nodes in the network, the consensus protocol will maintain correctness so long as: f ≤ (n−1)/5 (1) where f is the number Byzantine failures

20% to block, 80% to get something conflicting in. Everything in between will vote "no" on both transactions since consensus won't be reached.

So yes, if there are 20%+ colluding, you have a problem. If 80%+ are colluding, you have a REAL problem.

why ?

what would be the difference between any other premined / IPO coin ?

Ripple is mainly a distributed exchange, not a "coin".

[monsterer]

20% to block, 80% to get something conflicting in. Everything in between will vote "no" on both transactions since consensus won't be reached.

So yes, if there are 20%+ colluding, you have a problem. If 80%+ are colluding, you have a REAL problem.

No consensus is essentially a DOS - 20% is too low a threshold for a trustless environment like the altcoin world, IMO.

[Sukrim]

DoS with cryptographic proof that you are being attacked though. I agree however, these numbers might need to be tweaked depending on requirements. Back on topic I still don't see how a fork would give exchanges anything else than a larger amount of (worthless) native tokens but a LOT of additional infrastructure to maintain.

For the costs of a few full rippled nodes alone (as a comparison: Ripple has about the same amount of tx/s as Bitcoin right now with no arbitrary blocksize limitations, requires more than 1 TB of SSD space if you want full history and won't even compile on something with less than 8 GB RAM) you can buy a LOT of XRP. Add to this people to maintain the infrastructure, handle issues...

[monsterer]

For the costs of a few full rippled nodes alone (as a comparison: Ripple has about the same amount of tx/s as Bitcoin right now with no arbitrary blocksize limitations, requires more than 1 TB of SSD space if you want full history and won't even compile on something with less than 8 GB RAM) you can buy a LOT of XRP. Add to this people to maintain the infrastructure, handle issues...

You can't use ripple for this, ripple labs has too much control.

[Sukrim]

For the costs of a few full rippled nodes alone (as a comparison: Ripple has about the same amount of tx/s as Bitcoin right now with no arbitrary blocksize limitations, requires more than 1 TB of SSD space if you want full history and won't even compile on something with less than 8 GB RAM) you can buy a LOT of XRP. Add to this people to maintain the infrastructure, handle issues...

You can't use ripple for this, ripple labs has too much control.

...which they haven't yet used, even in cases where it would have been much cheaper and faster to do so (e.g. Jed McCaleb's threat to sell off his founder's share or the recent sale of 1 million USD worth of XRP by him or one of his relatives) or where people clearly were defrauded on Ripple. I get the argument though and still hope that their decentralization project at https://rippletest.net/ takes off.

[monsterer]

I get the argument though and still hope that their decentralization project at https://rippletest.net/ takes off.

I hadn't heard about that, thanks, I will read up on it...

...First thing I saw was this:

focus on public trust

which doesn't bode well, but I'll keep reading

[Spoetnik]

what scares me is they may get Banks doors open via Bribery..
Say for example they convince some random bank to use Ripple and in turn they will donate millions of Ripples..
ugggh scary