You guys gonna become paranoid about Ripple

[XxionxX]

Is there some key piece of information which has passed me by? Because by all means, please share.

Yes, you missed the whole point! Ripple is a *payment* system that allows you to pay people in fiat currencies like dollars in much the same way you can currently pay people with Bitcoins.

Yet again with the cyclical thing! Then why not just use bitcoins!? What is the advantage of having to add a layer of abstraction on top of my bitcoins other than offloading transactions from the blockchain? And I will still need to wire people my usd if I use this to trade usd, and we all know that bitcoin stomps that system into the ground!

The interface is so bad that I do not even know how to loan any type of money, bitcoin or otherwise, to anyone!

We're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform.

... lol what? Direct from the wiki:

Alice announces to the room: "I owe Bob $100."

I understood that this is a poor analogy, but this is exactly what I am talking about. This kind of explanation is only leading to more confusion and misunderstanding. Your wiki is about as clear as a mudpuddle.

[JoelKatz]

Yet again with the cyclical thing! Then why not just use bitcoins!? What is the advantage of having to add a layer of abstraction on top of my bitcoins other than offloading transactions from the blockchain? And I will still need to wire people my usd if I use this to trade usd, and we all know that bitcoin stomps that system into the ground!

I agree that the case for using Ripple to pay in Bitcoins is not very strong. Ripple makes more sense as a way to make fiat currencies act more like Bitcoins. However, there are a few reasons:

1) Ripple has faster transactions.

2) Ripple allows you to pay in dollars even if the recipient wants Bitcoins.

3) Ripple allows you to receive dollars even if you are paid in Bitcoins.

4) Ripple offers the ability to use community credit to borrow or lend Bitcoins.

As I said, the case is not very strong.

One nice thing though -- every merchant who accepts Ripple will be another merchant you can pay in Bitcoins. Once Bitcoin inbound gateways are set up, you'll be able to take a merchant's Ripple payment information, get a Bitcoin amount and account to pay from the gateway, and then the gateway will deliver the Ripple payment once you make the Bitcoin payment.

The interface is so bad that I do not even know how to loan any type of money, bitcoin or otherwise, to anyone!

We're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform.

... lol what? Direct from the wiki:

Alice announces to the room: "I owe Bob $100."

I understood that this is a poor analogy, but this is exactly what I am talking about. This kind of explanation is only leading to more confusion and misunderstanding. Your wiki is about as clear as a mudpuddle.

I agree, it's very unclear. When I say we're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform, I mean by the common sense definition of lending. Technically, it is lending. For example, when you have $500 in the bank, technically you have loaned the bank $500. But we don't think of it as lending.

For you to have the Ripple equivalent of $500 in the bank, a gateway must announce that it owes you $500. But that's not a lending platform.

[XxionxX]

Until more information is forthcoming, I'm going to assume OpenCoin's so-called "Ripple" implementation is just another pre-mined alt-coin (XRP), but this time with corporate backing and using Ripple as its mask to get in good with the Bitcoin community. What does OpenCoin care if the debt features of the system never take off and everyone just uses XRP like BTC? They just profit all the more, providing no one notices the bait-and-switch until after the system has reached critical mass.

I have to say, good luck with that. Without my help you won't ever get any of my friends and family to understand or want to use Ripple. It is hard enough to sell them on bitcoin! Does anyone think this company has the funds or muscle to make a critical mass of people want to use it's currency? I am only just beginning to understand it, and that is because I have done an INORDINATE amount of research. I wouldn’t even try to explain this to my family, bitcoins were hard enough.

Not to mention that if bitcoin keeps moving with it's current momentum nothing is going to stand in it's way. This company is dreaming if they think they are going to overcome over all of these hurdles without some massive grassroots campaign. Do they even have the manpower/money to try and attempt this? Do they think the bitcoin community is just going to up jump ship? <sarcasm>Because I am sure all of the Libertarians and people on the Silk Road will love to use this centralized currency which is owned by a corporation for their trading purposes.</sarcasm>

The only way I can even imagine this working is in direct conjunction and cooperation with bitcoin community. Are there any reasons why we should help this company? Because I was under the impression that the blockchain problem was being worked on and that it should not be taken as a serious issue currently.

[XxionxX]

The interface is so bad that I do not even know how to loan any type of money, bitcoin or otherwise, to anyone!

We're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform.

... lol what? Direct from the wiki:

Alice announces to the room: "I owe Bob $100."

I understood that this is a poor analogy, but this is exactly what I am talking about. This kind of explanation is only leading to more confusion and misunderstanding. Your wiki is about as clear as a mudpuddle.

I agree, it's very unclear. When I say we're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform, I mean by the common sense definition of lending. Technically, it is lending. For example, when you have $500 in the bank, technically you have loaned the bank $500. But we don't think of it as lending.

For you to have the Ripple equivalent for $500 in the bank, a gateway must announce that it owes you $500. But that's not a lending platform.

-_-

I mean by the common sense definition of lending. Technically, it is lending. For example, when you have $500 in the bank, technically you have loaned the bank $500. But we don't think of it as lending.

#1 Please don't doublespeak me, it is something which gets under my skin. I get enough of that from the news, politicians, and bankers.

#2 If I am correct when I say it is a loan system then don't try and call me out over nothing. If I am not totally correct, please inform me about what I am missing.

#3 I live in the US I and understand quite well I am loaning my bank my money. What do you think the economic crisis was all about? Do you think I want to loan the bank my money? The bastards at my local bank bankrupted a multi-million dollar college scholarship program which was given to our community by a generous millionaire who passed away. The higher education of thousands was wiped away in an instant because some assholes at the bank just had to invest in real estate which was not covered under the strict rules set forth by the millionaire’s trust fund. Want to know what takes the cake? This bank was promptly bailed out by our government.

Why do you think I am here on the bitcoin forums trying to escape the usd and the massively corrupt banking system?

Plenty of normal people understand that their money is a loan to the bank. Occupy Wallstreet wasn't a tea party.

What you are proposing is the textbook definition of lending. What other possible definition of lending do you think exists? Credit cards? Bank loans? Car loans? Business loans? They all come from a bank unless you have some rich friends, family, or are good friends with a loan shark. And even then those are just different forms of the same process. Don't try and sell me on some phony definition of debt or try and sweep it under the rug.

Debt has its place in the world. People need debt. When debt is used properly, you can get ahead in life. But there are these scumbags at the top who are stealing from the American populace. Directly. No conspiracy, no convoluted schemes, just plain theft. In the wrong hands, debt is a tool to enslave a people. So excuse me if I am not good friends with debt.

If you are proposing a centralized debt based system then you better be up front about it.

I am not liking this the more I understand, and it's not because I don't like debt. I would love to have a p2p distributed debt issuance system which is not controlled by the banks.

I am not liking this concept because people seem to be skewing the truth or withholding information. I am reserving judgement for now but color me unimpressed. Especially because all of this seems to be cornered by one company trying to make a buck.

I think you guys from ripple are in the wrong forum if you are trying to sell your product which is not completely designed to complement our desired currency revolution. This place is filled with some pretty smart people and a lot of people like myself who don't like or trust companies or banks. They just don't like people messing with their money, why do you think so many of them are gold and silver bugs? And I am sure that no one wants people monetizing or abusing their currency revolution.

You guys might want to step up your game if you believe you have something to bring to the table. People seem to be getting the wrong idea, myself included. If you want to be selling shovels when the gold rush strikes, you are going to have to let the miners know yours are the best.

What is your elevator pitch? Because your communication skills need polishing.

[cypherdoc]

Yet again with the cyclical thing! Then why not just use bitcoins!? What is the advantage of having to add a layer of abstraction on top of my bitcoins other than offloading transactions from the blockchain? And I will still need to wire people my usd if I use this to trade usd, and we all know that bitcoin stomps that system into the ground!

I agree that the case for using Ripple to pay in Bitcoins is not very strong. Ripple makes more sense as a way to make fiat currencies act more like Bitcoins. However, there are a few reasons:

1) Ripple has faster transactions.

2) Ripple allows you to pay in dollars even if the recipient wants Bitcoins.

3) Ripple allows you to receive dollars even if you are paid in Bitcoins.

4) Ripple offers the ability to use community credit to borrow or lend Bitcoins.

As I said, the case is not very strong.

One nice thing though -- every merchant who accepts Ripple will be another merchant you can pay in Bitcoins. Once Bitcoin inbound gateways are set up, you'll be able to take a merchant's Ripple payment information, get a Bitcoin amount and account to pay from the gateway, and then the gateway will deliver the Ripple payment once you make the Bitcoin payment.

The interface is so bad that I do not even know how to loan any type of money, bitcoin or otherwise, to anyone!

We're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform.

... lol what? Direct from the wiki:

Alice announces to the room: "I owe Bob $100."

I understood that this is a poor analogy, but this is exactly what I am talking about. This kind of explanation is only leading to more confusion and misunderstanding. Your wiki is about as clear as a mudpuddle.

I agree, it's very unclear. When I say we're not promoting Ripple as a lending platform, I mean by the common sense definition of lending. Technically, it is lending. For example, when you have $500 in the bank, technically you have loaned the bank $500. But we don't think of it as lending.

For you to have the Ripple equivalent of $500 in the bank, a gateway must announce that it owes you $500. But that's not a lending platform.

Joel, when are you going to realize that you can't just keep throwing out all these claims without explaining the details/mechanisms behind them.

Those of us who have looked at the cursory information so far provided have not been impressed.

Xion is right, you'd better step up your game quick or you won't get another chance.

[cypherdoc]

i have alot of clients who happen to be estate attorneys.  we often talk about their work.

of course they're biased but the universal theme is that families should have an estate plan in place.  i believe them and have one in place for my family.  when it comes down to dividing the inheritance amongst siblings all kinds of problems can crop up which can tear apart relationships.  i certainly can believe it myself as when my parents passed away, i had a sibling who kept asking/justifying for more and more b/c he was in an inferior financial situation to the rest of us.

bottom line, no matter how much you think you can trust a good friend to perform on an IOU at one point in time, there can certainly come a later point in time (IOU's have time related counterparty risk) where that trust may no longer apply due to changing circumstances.  there needs to be a well defined plan in place to mediate disputes.  and it has to be legal.

[cypherdoc]

I am just sitting here with my ripples. Not knowing what the hell they are for Like a G+ user and their ghost town of friends. Trade debt? With who!? I think you must be mistaking me with another nerd who has friends

since they didn't cost you anything, you should just throw them in a drawer somewhere and forget about them for 10 years.  if they happen to go up in value then you win.  if not, no harm done.

oh wait.  if you don't circulate them, then how will they go up in value?

[cypherdoc]

why did Jed McCaleb sell mtgox right at the wrong time? he gave away a gold mine.  oops, sorry.  a Bitcoin mine.

he says it's b/c it was for security reasons.  no.  it's b/c he didn't understand the potential of Bitcoin.

now you expect me to believe in Ripple?  especially when he and the other founders are holding back 50 Billion XRP's for themselves?

[BitcoinAshley]

I don't get the rant.

If you don't want a system to pay in any currency/commodity pair by micro-loaning money by "rippling it" through a p2p social network, that is run by a slightly shady group of people who premined the coins and don't really know how to work the public or make their operation not seem shady - don't do it.

Easy as that.

Does this thread exist so JoelKatz can personally attend to your ideological issues regarding the role of debt in modern society and in the modern socialist government/banking system? IDK, probably not, but I'm just guessing. Joel will you be his shoulder to cry on about the local bank stealing the kids' scholarship money or whatever? I get it, debt's evil. Or banks are evil. Or the expectation of government bailouts causing banks to take unrealistic risks with loan money is evil. Or something. What was the point of that again?

As for ripple, if it doesn't take off due to trust or centralization issues, someone else will come along, frankenstein the concept with other features that work better, and launch a new one. Whatever. That's how the market works.

I would like a system where I can trade any currency or commodity pair electronically through a web where I only have to trust my closest friends (btw, DUH OF COURSE YOUR FRIENDS CAN BURN YOU, the idea being that you have more options for recourse being burned by a friend vs being burned by a random stranger on the tor network. And you have more options for determining eligibility for trust in regards to a known individual rather than a random anon from the internet. But folks, feel free to continue stating the obvious. **** YAAAWWWWNNNN ****** )
Whether Ripple is able to provide a system like this that meets my standards of decentralization, open source standards, etc... is to be seen. Right now things look a little iffy in the way that they've managed public opinion and the openness of their project. And there may have been a better way to distribute coins, lol... didn't they know their current method was going to have bitcoiners screaming "PREMINE! PREMINE! STAY THE F@@@ AWAY!" I mean, come one, people, THINK about how what you're doing appears to the BTC community with their tin foil hats and ron paul bumper stickers! Audience, hello?

Maybe they're hoping for a more mainstream adoption, i.e. the facebook type people who initially ignored bitcoin will be like "Hey I'll give this ripple thing a try, their website looks real nice and the concept is hard to understand so it must be hip and ironic," and once it takes off the bitcoiners will feel obliged.
Who knows.
Like I said, I'll stay at a safe distance, see what happens, see how the Ripple team shapes things (right now looks like they got some work to do ;-)). Hopefully someone else will come along, steal the concept, and launch it the RITE WAY.

[JoelKatz]

Joel, when are you going to realize that you can't just keep throwing out all these claims without explaining the details/mechanisms behind them.

I guess I don't understand why this particular issue is so confusing. Maybe I've done a bad job of communicating.

We're pitching Ripple as a payment system where most people extend "trust" only to a gateway. People using the system this way can make and receive payments and they don't ever owe anyone anything and their friends don't ever owe them anything. We believe this is the best use for Ripple for the most people in the short term. Ripple can provide numerous advantages over conventional payment systems such as irreversible payments, high-speed confirmations, cross-currency payments, low fees, and so on.

Yes, Ripple can also be used other ways such as to extend social/community credit to friends. But we're not expecting people to actually do that to drive the system. Personally, I think long term that may become Ripple's killer application and may change the way people think about money.

[Mike Christ]

Okay I think I got it.

Bitcoin works like gold, where the more of it you have, the richer you are.

Ripple works like fiat, where the more of it you're owed, the richer you are.

Ripple only works with Bitcoin if you're literally expecting to be owed in Bitcoin.  Otherwise, they can work perfectly separate from each other, and you can still expect dollars or baht or pounds or SteveCoins, whatever your preference is.  Is this the point of Ripple?  To unify all the world's fiat currencies, whatever they may be, into one gigantic system of IOU?

_{Oh god please say yes}

[JoelKatz]

Is this the point of Ripple?  To unify all the world's fiat currencies, whatever they may be, into one gigantic system of IOU?

_{Oh god please say yes}

That's how we're pitching it because we think that's the use case that appeals to the most people in the short term and solves expensive, real-world problems that people actually have today. Long term, people will use it however it best serves them and that's very hard to predict.

[Odalv]

Is this the point of Ripple?  To unify all the world's fiat currencies, whatever they may be, into one gigantic system of IOU?

_{Oh god please say yes}

That's how we're pitching it because we think that's the use case that appeals to the most people in the short term and solves expensive, real-world problems that people actually have today. Long term, people will use it however it best serves them and that's very hard to predict.

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.  Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

EDIT: I'm sorry I do not have so trustworthy friend.

[JoelKatz]

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.

It's not zero risk. There's a risk that a 51% attack will devalue the currency. There's a risk that a speculative bubble will collapse and devalue the currency. There's a risk that Bitcoin will collapse and leave you holding something that's worthless. These aren't high risks, of course, and it may make perfect sense to take them. But it's not zero risk.

Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

No, that's a misunderstanding of how Ripple works. You can only lose money if someone you chose to trust betrays that trust. Other people defaulting cannot harm you.

Payment paths only exist for the instant a payment is made. After that, it's just balances between people who have chosen to trust each other.

To use a check analogy, say you pay your landlord with a $400 check. He deposits that check in his bank. Now your bank owes you $400 less and his bank owes him $400 more. So he considers you to have paid him $400. But if his bank collapses, that doesn't harm you. He chose to trust his bank and his bank accepted the check. It's only if your bank collapses that you may be out money.

You gave him a $400 check that was acceptable to a bank he chose to trust. That ends your end of the bargain. Him getting the $400 from the bank that he chose to trust is his problem. And, of course, my bank paying his bank is his bank's problem, not mine or his. If his bank agreed to accept checks from my bank, then if that goes wrong that's their problem.

You can never wind up being owed money by anyone you didn't choose to trust.

[Mike Christ]

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.  Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

EDIT: I'm sorry I do not have so trustworthy friend.

I believe the point is, if your buddy isn't using Bitcoin, or you're expecting payment from a person who isn't using Bitcoin, you could use Ripple with any currency

[Littleshop]

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.

It's not zero risk. There's a risk that a 51% attack will devalue the currency. There's a risk that a speculative bubble will collapse and devalue the currency. There's a risk that Bitcoin will collapse and leave you holding something that's worthless. These aren't high risks, of course, and it may make perfect sense to take them. But it's not zero risk.

Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

No, that's a misunderstanding of how Ripple works. You can only lose money if someone you chose to trust betrays that trust. Other people defaulting cannot harm you.

To use a check analogy, say you pay your landlord with a $400 check. He deposits that check in his bank. Now your bank owes you $400 less and his bank owes him $400 more. So he considers you to have paid him $400. But if his bank collapses, that doesn't harm you. He chose to trust his bank and his bank accepted the check. It's only if your bank collapses that you may be out money.

You gave him a $400 check that was acceptable to a bank he chose to trust. That ends your end of the bargain. Him getting the $400 from the bank that he chose to trust is his problem. And, of course, my bank paying his bank is his bank's problem, not mine or his. If his bank agreed to accept checks from my bank, then if that goes wrong that's their problem.

You are comparing the risk of a 51% attack with the counterparty risk?  That is insane!  A 51% attack is now pretty unlikely while someone NOT PAYING (counterparty risk) is a huge risk.  People fail on debts ALL THE TIME.

[moocowpong1]

Is this the point of Ripple?  To unify all the world's fiat currencies, whatever they may be, into one gigantic system of IOU?

_{Oh god please say yes}

That's how we're pitching it because we think that's the use case that appeals to the most people in the short term and solves expensive, real-world problems that people actually have today. Long term, people will use it however it best serves them and that's very hard to predict.

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.  Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

EDIT: I'm sorry I do not have so trustworthy friend.

You really shouldn't be extending Ripple trust to your friends unless you've got real good friends. Social relationships and banking relationships don't often work together very well. To use Ripple, you probably want to have an account at a single gateway, and trust only that gateway. Your Ripple balance with them is like a bank account balance – they owe you money, but you have a "withdraw on demand" agreement with them, so you can turn that balance into "real" money whenever you want.

And you can't send money with zero risk with Bitcoin. There's no counterparty risk, but there's a huge exchange rate risk. Ripple lets you do Bitcoin-like transactions denominated in whatever currency you like, and the cost of that is letting a third party hold some of your money for a while. If you can't trust anybody at all, you can't use Ripple.

[Odalv]

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.  Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

EDIT: I'm sorry I do not have so trustworthy friend.

I believe the point is, if your buddy isn't using Bitcoin, or you're expecting payment from a person who isn't using Bitcoin, you could use Ripple with any currency

:-) It will take me 10 min to teach him what is Bitcoin and how to withdrawn his money I'm sending (then 1 hour until transaction is confirmed 6 times). ... try this with Ripple:-) ... impossible

[JoelKatz]

You are comparing the risk of a 51% attack with the counterparty risk?  That is insane!  A 51% attack is now pretty unlikely while someone NOT PAYING (counterparty risk) is a huge risk.  People fail on debts ALL THE TIME.

Actually, the comparison between these risks is not as simple as you make it seem, especially because you have to take into account not just the probability of the risk occurring but also the magnitude of the damage if it does. But all I was doing was disputing the claim that Bitcoin is zero risk.

I certainly agree that if you want to pay Bitcoins to someone who wants to accept Bitcoins, there isn't much of a reason to use Ripple to do it.

:-) It will take me 10 min to teach him what is Bitcoin and how to withdrawn his money I'm sending (then 1 hour until transaction is confirmed 6 times). ... try this with Ripple:-) ... impossible

Streamlining and simplifying is critical to mass adoption, I agree. Bitcoin has had similar problems in the past, made great strides towards improving, and I think it has made a large difference.

[cypherdoc]

I do not understand. I can send money directly to anybody in the world using Bitcoin with ZERO risk.

It's not zero risk. There's a risk that a 51% attack will devalue the currency. There's a risk that a speculative bubble will collapse and devalue the currency. There's a risk that Bitcoin will collapse and leave you holding something that's worthless. These aren't high risks, of course, and it may make perfect sense to take them. But it's not zero risk.

Or using ripple? I'll give $10,000USD to my fiend, he give them to his friend (then 6 other I never saw)... and if one of them is cheater I have lost $10,000 USD. This is Ripple ? If somebody buy me a coffee I can give him $1M ?

No, that's a misunderstanding of how Ripple works. You can only lose money if someone you chose to trust betrays that trust. Other people defaulting cannot harm you.

To use a check analogy, say you pay your landlord with a $400 check. He deposits that check in his bank. Now your bank owes you $400 less and his bank owes him $400 more. So he considers you to have paid him $400. But if his bank collapses, that doesn't harm you. He chose to trust his bank and his bank accepted the check. It's only if your bank collapses that you may be out money.

You gave him a $400 check that was acceptable to a bank he chose to trust. That ends your end of the bargain. Him getting the $400 from the bank that he chose to trust is his problem. And, of course, my bank paying his bank is his bank's problem, not mine or his. If his bank agreed to accept checks from my bank, then if that goes wrong that's their problem.

You are comparing the risk of a 51% attack with the counterparty risk?  That is insane!  A 51% attack is now pretty unlikely while someone NOT PAYING (counterparty risk) is a huge risk.  People fail on debts ALL THE TIME.

exactly