WTF happened to ripple?

[Sunny King]

From what you've been telling me, this is not the case. But then we have Jed coming on and saying that yes Ripple does function as a unit of currency like Bitcoin. Which one is it? If the people involved with the project cannot even present a consistent description how can we have confidence in the system?

Of course it would be currency and with fixed/dwindling supply (after distribution process completes), it would be as good a store of value as bitcoin.  Obviously Joel is just doing the necessary PR to appease the 'premine' outrage.  

If I had such a good PR/image skills I would have my own startup soon  

[commonancestor]

I have got a similar opinion like OP.

Ripple.com is a mix of Bitcoin-like currency XRP and ripple IOUs. As XRP is more suitable for payments than IOUs, it seems that IOUs would become only a secondary feature, and so it seems unfair to call this system Ripple. The difference from Bitcoin would be no mining, but starting a new server would be more troublesome because the peer has to find some (many?) peers that he would trust not to cheat him, ideally some peers he knows.

How about True Ripple? I can think of a system with just IOUs without XRP. It would also be truly P2P. There wouldn't be the global ledger but just peers transacting with (few) peers they know. All value transfer would be performed using chains of IOU transfers between peers, obviously. To prevent spamming there would be fees for all activities using up resources, like routing a search through a node, or routing a payment through a node. If a node sets fees too high then the traffic would route through someone else eventually. The actual interaction between nodes would need to be somewhat cautious, so the money don't disappear on a half-way, but it seems doable.

[JoelKatz]

As XRP is more suitable for payments than IOUs, it seems that IOUs would become only a secondary feature, and so it seems unfair to call this system Ripple.

I fully understand that this kind of reasoning has a kind of attractive logic to it, but I think that's an extremely unlikely scenario. I could have made a similar argument in 1950 that people would soon abandon fiat currencies and switch to gold certificates. I can make a similar argument that Bitcoin will make fiat currencies obsolete. Sure, that might be the endgame in the far future, but to focus on that endgame *now*, rather than the many decades of work we have to get there, is navel contemplation.

[misterbigg]

Can we please get a straight answer?

So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?

[JoelKatz]

So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?

Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

[misterbigg]

Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss.

Actually, this says a lot.

I am prohibited from discussing that.

I'll do it for you. You're insanely annoyed at the onslaught of newbs who just don't seem to understand that XRPs are not like Bitcoin. And you're frustrated because you can't respond to set them straight, because doing so might make the necessary and difficult bootstrapping process even harder.

[alexkravets]

Good one.  I will interpret Joel's _lack_ of disagreement with the previous remark as an implicit agreement :-)

[markm]

Oh well, next time maybe create a hundred trillion whatzits and give people fifty million each when doing giveaways, maybe instant internet multimillionaires wouldn't be as ungrateful as people who receive handouts of only a puny fifty grand!



-MarkM-

[proff]

Credit where credit is due! The following scheme was described by Ben Laurie years ago:

The "central authority" consists of a set of distributed (and preferably independent) servers which keep track of the ledger of balances (a Merkle hash tree) using a Byzantine-fault-tolerant consensus protocol. They enforce constraints on the system (e.g., coin creation and distribution---no need to do it manually or premine) and blacklist dishonest or malfunctioning servers.

All the honest servers will agree to the same transaction log (of course a severe netsplit will stop transactions from committing). The clients need to come preconfigured with a list of servers (which can be updated by the network). So, unless something goes very, very wrong, there is no need for the user to worry about deciding whom servers to trust.

There are clearly some details to fill in to specify a complete implementation, scalability issues, etc., but Laurie's distributed currency uses established ingredients that are mathematically proved to work and gives you transaction confirmation in seconds (no need to "mine"). It could also be used for Bitcoin and other currency transfer/exchange (there seems to be a need for this anyway) as well as more advanced uses.

Now, I indeed remember the original ripple web-of-trust proposal being as gmaxwell described. The "new" system seems to be something else, and I echo people's concerns expressed in this thread and do not see how they have been resolved to any satisfaction. It may be unintentional on the part of the ripple developers, but something seems fishy or opaque about it (at least at this point in time), and it looks like a commercial rather than a community project.

[bitbully]

Now, I indeed remember the original ripple web-of-trust proposal being as gmaxwell described. The "new" system seems to be something else, and I echo people's concerns expressed in this thread and do not see how they have been resolved to any satisfaction. It may be unintentional on the part of the ripple developers, but something seems fishy or opaque about it (at least at this point in time), and it looks like a commercial rather than a community project.

+1. Excellent summary of the situation.

I find it near impossible to discuss this matter transparently with Joel.

Joel Katz: "I am prohibited from disclosing my opinion about XRP's future value."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144471.msg1554983#msg1554983)

This is not a joke, and while some people love to suck up to power authority, most bitcoiners in this forum are smart enough to recognize a rotten egg.

Joel, I recommend to you whole wholeheartedly to either expose your commercial intentions, or commit to altering and democratizing the txn solution at hand; otherwise you will be building a ticking time bomb. You won't end up controlling 50%+ market share but you know what they say: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Don't set yourself up for failure.

From a true open source and decentralized democratized point of view, the idea of centralized txn authority is ridiculous. If this is the "only viable solution" you should either be opening up the platform to multiple fiat currencies so that users can create their own and there is a competitive free market amongst txn fee operators, or define a rock solid democratic distribution plan of all the XRP.

Yet as I find the idea of an unsustainable self destructive txn fee currency a horrible idea akin to building on sand, the focus should be on disconnecting any value system from this txn fee mechanism, and focusing on proof of work as a security measure; or allow the network node operators to have a choice of what currency they prefer be paid as a txn mechanism.

I realize this is a technical challenge but my intention is to open the debate and make sure you are open to change, otherwise I and others will fork our efforts towards bitcoin web of trust enhancement and your "ripple + get rich quick scheme" will bite the dust.

You are clearly smart enough to know that we would realize this "necessary design flaw" as an overly greedy excuse on your part for power and control; therefore your downplaying of the issue leads me to believe your actions are highly strategic and premeditated. If you truly want to succeed with your efforts and with this community your veil of secrecy and prohibited dialog needs to end.

Joel, please do not take my comments as hostile or personal. I really want ripple to succeed, and I'm simply pointing out the elephant in the room.

[johnyj]

So many text here 

Even some aspects of bitcoin are quite a bit over my head, ripple is just too complex for me to understand

[commonancestor]

So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?

Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

Is this a joke? lol

[JoelKatz]

So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?

Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

Is this a joke? lol

Say, hypothetically, you were the president of a publicly-traded company and you were about to announce a major new product that would likely result in an increase in your company's stock price. Or maybe you're not about to introduce a major new product but people are expecting you to. Or may you know your company is being investigated by the FBI for importing lobsters illegally (50 CFR 640.27). And say someone on a forum asks you, "So, what up with your company?" What do you do?

[paraipan]

So, can we get a straight answer?

JoelKatz can I have your personal opinions on the speculation going on with XRP right now (see my example quotes)?

Unfortunately, no. I am prohibited from discussing that. Those things that I cannot comment honestly on for any reason, I simply do not discuss. There's nothing I enjoy more than sharing my honest opinions with others, but in this area, I cannot do so.

Is this a joke? lol

Say, hypothetically, you were the president of a publicly-traded company and you were about to announce a major new product that would likely result in an increase in your company's stock price. Or maybe you're not about to introduce a major new product but people are expecting you to. Or may you know your company is being investigated by the FBI for importing lobsters illegally (50 CFR 640.27). And say someone on a forum asks you, "So, what up with your company?" What do you do?

Way to give a straight answer to the question at hand... running around in circles. I will just leave this here

http://www.rugatu.com/questions/6452/what-is-ripple

[markm]

Suppose my idea of imagining Ripples as if they are more like community shares than a community currency per se of a more normal (un-sharelike) type.

Suppose the SEC and other branches of Big Brother have not made any ruling that "community shares" are some kind of "exemption" from rules and regulations applicable to "corporate shares".

Suppose people are already in danger of predatory speculators / Uranian mafia / Ferrengi relieving them of their birthright for a mess of pottage.

What do you say/write?

a) If you are an "insider"?

b) If you are a deniable asset of the Martian Intelligence 5ervice based out of the city MI-5ius of the planet known as M5?

c) Other?

-MarkM-

[Timo Y]

[...]
Now, I indeed remember the original ripple web-of-trust proposal being as gmaxwell described. The "new" system seems to be something else, and I echo people's concerns expressed in this thread and do not see how they have been resolved to any satisfaction. It may be unintentional on the part of the ripple developers, but something seems fishy or opaque about it (at least at this point in time), and it looks like a commercial rather than a community project.

To me, it looks like it is both a commercial and community project.  Is that a paradox? Not necessarily.

It looks like the pre-mined pre-issued XRP are a way for the developers/founders to monetize their work.  That's fair enough in my opinion, even though they overdid it by keeping such a large share.

I too would have preferred a "pure" community project, but the commercial element won't stop me from using Ripple.

I'm happy that someone is working hard at making this idea happen.  At least the XRP pre-issuing is giving the developers a motivation to keep working at it.  I prefer an imperfect Ripple that actually happens in the real world than a perfect, idealistic Ripple that languishes as an idea on a mailing list for 10 years. 

All this discussion about the XRP price is petty.  Speculators are gonna speculate.  There isn't much anyone can do about that in a free market, not even the Ripple founders.  Who cares if there is hoarding of XRP? Who cares if there are XRP bubbles?

It terms of Ripple functionality, none of that matters. Neither does it matter that a single entity holds 80% of XRP.  That does not make them a "central bank".  Even if OpenCoin held 99% of XRP, once Ripple transitions to a community project, this will not allow them to "buy" consensus or to block certain transactions.  Maybe they can manipulate or crash the XRP market. Who cares? That will only affect people who transact in XRP, not those who transact in other currencies.  And the ability to transact in arbitrary currencies is the main selling point of Ripple. The XRP are just an auxiliary tool.
 

[moocowpong1]

Maybe they can manipulate or crash the XRP market. Who cares? That will only affect people who transact in XRP, not those who transact in other currencies.  And the ability to transact in arbitrary currencies is the main selling point of Ripple. The XRP are just an auxiliary tool.
 

In fact, not only *can* they crash the XRP market, they will, repeatedly. As long as the giveaways continue happening, XRP will be seriously hampered as a store of value. This is one of the reasons the pre-issue doesn't bother me too much: unless they're lying about how they plan to distribute XRP, it will be difficult for them to make much money by cashing out. Their stated intentions – making Ripple free to use as long as possible for as many people as possible – are incompatible with making a quick buck off of the pre-issued XRP.

[jojkaart]

In fact, not only *can* they crash the XRP market, they will, repeatedly. As long as the giveaways continue happening, XRP will be seriously hampered as a store of value. This is one of the reasons the pre-issue doesn't bother me too much: unless they're lying about how they plan to distribute XRP, it will be difficult for them to make much money by cashing out. Their stated intentions – making Ripple free to use as long as possible for as many people as possible – are incompatible with making a quick buck off of the pre-issued XRP.

Yes, precisely. That's why I'm wide eyed at some people paying up to 4 BTC for 50kXRP.

The purpose of XRPs is not to become a store of value. It's purpose is to work as an anti-spam fee token to make it more difficult to spam the network. Thus, they need to be cheap enough for pretty much anyone to be able to afford to make an account. Giving them out for free helps this as well as keeping a big portion of them for themselves, that keeps speculators in check somewhat (well ok, not the stupid ones)

[proff]

I still wouldn't mind seeing an implementation of Laurie's (et al.) scheme of instantly (well, within seconds) confirming transactions via a distributed authority. Bitcoin may need that anyway, in one form or another.

Still would take on the order of a year of development to do everything right, of course. But, if you really do not like Ripple, there are things you can do about it other than complain.

[Peter Lambert]

Maybe they can manipulate or crash the XRP market. Who cares? That will only affect people who transact in XRP, not those who transact in other currencies.  And the ability to transact in arbitrary currencies is the main selling point of Ripple. The XRP are just an auxiliary tool.
 

In fact, not only *can* they crash the XRP market, they will, repeatedly. As long as the giveaways continue happening, XRP will be seriously hampered as a store of value. This is one of the reasons the pre-issue doesn't bother me too much: unless they're lying about how they plan to distribute XRP, it will be difficult for them to make much money by cashing out. Their stated intentions – making Ripple free to use as long as possible for as many people as possible – are incompatible with making a quick buck off of the pre-issued XRP.

Not only will the XRP market crash each time there is another dump/giveaway/massive sale by the founders, they have also explicitly stated that the reserve requirements and transaction fees may be lowered in the future, and each time these are lowered the price will drop as well.