Ripple XRP distribution requires immediate formalization

[bitbully]

If ripple.com doesn't proclaim loud and clear that their intent is to find a community consensus of how to fairly distribute the whole of xrp in existence, then a dark path is ahead. For as the value of xrp rises, so will the devil in the hearts of those who hold it, and soon power will corrupt and scarcity will be the key to profits and control. Even if you trust the creators, centralizing the xrp reserves will attract power hungry monsters who will find a way to take over, whether it through government/mafia coercion or economic means. Satoshi would be rolling in his grave. Ripple has amazing potential, lets make sure it is for the greater good of us all.

[1714107817]

1714107817

[1714107817]

1714107817

[JoelKatz]

If ripple.com doesn't proclaim loud and clear that their intent is to find a community consensus of how to fairly distribute the whole of xrp in existence

We have already proclaimed loud and clear what our intent is to distribute XRP. I think any change in the plan, other than the timing, is very unlikely at this point.

[nikb]

It seems to be they've been pretty clear about what they intend to do. What makes you think they haven't, or what else do you think they could do to make it clearer?

[ripper234]

If ripple.com doesn't proclaim loud and clear that their intent is to find a community consensus of how to fairly distribute the whole of xrp in existence

We have already proclaimed loud and clear what our intent is to distribute XRP. I think any change in the plan, other than the timing, is very unlikely at this point.

All that's missing is the plan how to distribute them.

[JoelKatz]

All that's missing is the plan how to distribute them.

Unfortunately, we're not willing to release details before the fact because of the risk that people will game the system. Here is what I can tell you:

The plan is to give away 50 billion of the 100 billion ripples. The rate at which they're given away will be determined by how quickly we can actually give them away and how quickly we believe we can scale the network and maintain its reliability.

Now, speaking officially for OpenCoin: We are committed to being transparent after the fact. We are committed to giving away 50 billion XRP. For each give away, such as the current Bitcoin Forum giveaway, we will publicly disclose at least how many people participated in the giveaway and how many XRP were given away.

[nikb]

All that's missing is the plan how to distribute them.

Unfortunately, we're not willing to release details before the fact because of the risk that people will game the system. Here is what I can tell you:

The plan is to give away 50 billion of the 100 billion ripples. The rate at which they're given away will be determined by how quickly we can actually give them away and how quickly we believe we can scale the network and maintain its reliability.

Now, speaking officially for OpenCoin: We are committed to being transparent after the fact. We are committed to giving away 50 billion XRP. For each give away, such as the current Bitcoin Forum giveaway, we will publicly disclose at least how many people participated in the giveaway and how many XRP were given away.

That actually seems fair and sensible.

[Zedster]

we will publicly disclose at least how many people participated in the giveaway and how many XRP were given away.

And where is that happening?  URL?

EDIT: left the part of the quote I am referring too.

[battmann]

Now, speaking officially for OpenCoin: We are committed to being transparent after the fact. We are committed to giving away 50 billion XRP. For each give away, such as the current Bitcoin Forum giveaway, we will publicly disclose at least how many people participated in the giveaway and how many XRP were given away.

And where is that happening?  URL?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145506.msg1544053#msg1544053

right here buddy

lrn2searchbtn

[bitbully]

There is a sort of vagueness which is alien to me considering the democratized nature of bitcoin distribution which I am used to. The whole ripple/opencoin relationship, the initial division of xrp, and the lack of a clear distribution solution pre-launch specifically with regards to the entirety of the currency reserve, leaves me fearful that human nature may show its ugly, yet wonderfully free market, face.

To the best of my understanding the venture is being managed under a for profit structure, and i believe that is certainly valid in today's economic climate. But the claim of being able to balance personal financial interests with altruistic goals is inherently self conflicting, and dishonest in a sense to a community upon which you will thrive and succeed. Perhaps I have not seen but you have published an intended business model?

From the ripple.com faq page:

How are you guys going to distribute the credits?
We are probably going to give away over half of the credits in a variety of ways. The goal is to spread the credits as evenly as possible among the people of the world. If you have any ideas please let us know.

Perhaps the faq is not updated, and perhaps I am not updated, but my intent is not to point fingers, it is merely to bring attention to a subject which I think needs solving, urgently.  Perhaps xrp can be divided amongst more than just opencoin but evenly about a variety of distribution agencies, perhaps an open community list to which as long as you meet certain requirements you can join. But this ofcourse brings me to the other issue:

If there are only 100 billion xrp, and you need to fund your account with a minimum of 200, then there's only enough for 1/2 billion
accounts? 1/14 of earth's population...? Scarcity is inevitable.

If your business model is to keep half the company "stock", while thinking you will happily give away the other half, then I think you are illuding yourself; and I think if someone said I'm keeping half the bitcoins and giving away the other half it would, well, no need to elaborate. Just because you underplay the value of xrp at first as an abundant transaction mechanism doesn't mean that they won't be very very valuable, eventually, inevitably. I perceive this notion as somewhat scheme like.

Ripple, while emulating much of bitcoin's feel, is missing the one factor that made bitcoin amazing: a democratic, self regulating, profit normalizing, distribution mechanism. Without it all you are is the next centrally managed fiat currency "federal reserve".

Any clarifications are appreciated. I love the ripple concept I just want to make sure some billionaire doesn't come along and buy up opencoin and all the xrp, or worse the government seizes the "xrp assets".

[Zedster]

Now, speaking officially for OpenCoin: We are committed to being transparent after the fact. We are committed to giving away 50 billion XRP. For each give away, such as the current Bitcoin Forum giveaway, we will publicly disclose at least how many people participated in the giveaway and how many XRP were given away.

And where is that happening?  URL?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145506.msg1544053#msg1544053

right here buddy

lrn2searchbtn

I was aware of the give away.  I wanted know where I could see the disclosure.

[Severian]

Ripple, while emulating much of bitcoin's feel, is missing the one factor that made bitcoin amazing: a democratic, self regulating, profit normalizing, distribution mechanism. Without it all you are is the next centrally managed fiat currency "federal reserve".

Maybe my perceptions are different, but XRPs won't ever be worth all that much compared to Bitcoins. I see XRPs as the tickets one needs to trade bitcoins and other currencies on Ripple. The show is worth more than the tickets. Rather than see XRPs as money, I see them as tokens or stamps. Ripple is a post office, Bitcoin is the letter.

If Jed, Joel and Open Coin have put all the effort into building a post office, I have no issue with how the postmasters distribute the stamps. The early builders of Bitcoin have a bunch of coins too, but the only people I hear complain about it are the envious.

Someone please correct me if I'm misperceiving this.

[JoelKatz]

Any clarifications are appreciated. I love the ripple concept I just want to make sure some billionaire doesn't come along and buy up opencoin and all the xrp, or worse the government seizes the "xrp assets".

What difference would that make though? If they're scarce, the cost of transactions and the reserve should come down by consensus. If they're plentiful, what's the issue?

The consensus process isn't XRP proof of stake, it will be purely democratic. The consensus process sets the transaction fees and reserve.

[Andrew Vorobyov]

Idea how to give away XRP:

You must make a commitment to fill any orders that want to buy XRP above some predefined threshold...

For example, people will always be able to buy XRP from you at $0.001

Benefits:

1. People will always be sure that they can buy "fuel" to drive.
2. You will be able slowly cash out money
3. There will be price stability, such needed thing in the beginning.

[becoin]

For example, people will always be able to buy XRP from you at $0.001

How about 1 satoshi instead?

[Andrew Vorobyov]

Even better... it will make BTC and Ripple very close connected.

[JoelKatz]

Idea how to give away XRP:

You must make a commitment to fill any orders that want to buy XRP above some predefined threshold...

For example, people will always be able to buy XRP from you at $0.001

Benefits:

1. People will always be sure that they can buy "fuel" to drive.
2. You will be able slowly cash out money
3. There will be price stability, such needed thing in the beginning.

You mean with an unlimited supply of XRP? That would have us essentially selling every transaction and ensuring the system never becomes decentralized.

If you mean with a limited supply, we'd run out. We'd either have to raise the price, essentially auctioning them off, or strictly limit who can buy how many, which I think defeats the point.

We want to make the system free to many people for as long as possible.

This is actually a very hard problem.

[becoin]

This is actually a very hard problem.

I agree. Transaction fees are big issue for BTC as well.

[bitbully]

Thinking deeper into the subject, are ripples even necessary? Why manage network security through another form of currency?

From a business model point of view yes this allows for the creation of value, but perhaps is not the most efficient approach to a truly decentralized system you are proposing.

Have you considered sustaining network stability through an algorithmic combination of dynamically throttled client side "hashcash" proof of work requirements, linked to transaction size, address/ip traffic amount, and other relevant variables, which adjusts according to network strain? Now that would be beautiful.

I say get rid of XRP all together it is a bad solution to a problem and creates more unnecessary complexity. Either that or allow the community to decide how ALL the XRP will be distributed, assuming your true priority is to solve a specific security problem. Thinking you can solve a problem by centralizing control is wrong, unless the solution offered is simply the excuse to centralize control.

[bitbully]

Additionally here the ripples are being destroyed, so to think that it would act as an incentive to keep the infrastructure reliable like with bitcoin is void in this case, therefore the added value that txn fees provide in bitcoin are not present here. Therefore why should xrp's have an exchangeable value to begin with? This merely further de-democratizes the system since xrp's are not available for public minting. I think you chose to imitate bitcoin incorrectly in this aspect.

[JoelKatz]

Have you considered sustaining network stability through an algorithmic combination of dynamically throttled client side "hashcash" proof of work requirements, linked to transaction size, address/ip traffic amount, and other relevant variables, which adjusts according to network strain? Now that would be beautiful.

Yes. It doesn't work well. An attacker will optimize their system for creating the proof of work while legitimate users will have to make do with whatever they've got. Also, an attacker can create proof of works in unlimited supply -- only the rate at which he can produce them is bounded. So if he has enough of an advantage over you, you will never get in ... ever. Then what do you do? Upgrade your computer?

I say get rid of XRP all together it is a bad solution to a problem and creates more unnecessary complexity. Either that or allow the community to decide how ALL the XRP will be distributed, assuming your true priority is to solve a specific security problem. Thinking you can solve a problem by centralizing control is wrong, unless the solution offered is simply the excuse to centralize control.

We're basically committed now. We're not centralizing control -- we carefully designed the system to not require any central authorities and to use a democratic consensus process rather than proof of stake. We'll be giving billions of XRP away to try to keep the system free for as many people as possible for as long as possible. We are committed to decentralizing the system.

If you believe it will succeed if centralized, why should we decentralize it? And if you don't believe it will succeed if centralized, why do you think we would centralize it? Or do you think we don't want it to succeed? We firmly believe Ripple will only succeed if decentralized.