Ripple

[grondilu]

My take on a Ripple opinion poll.

[1715267133]

1715267133

[1715267133]

1715267133

[1715267133]

1715267133

[1715267133]

1715267133

[1715267133]

1715267133

[1715267133]

1715267133

[molecular]

I think you should change the subject to something more meaningful, like "[POLL] what do you think of ripple"

What I think of ripple?

It's going to kill the banks unless the banks manage to kill ripple first.

For me ripple is an implementation of an infrastructure that can be used for Free Banking and also for "personal banking". It's also ideal for running community/local currencies.

All in all an awesome idea and hopefully impelmented on strong secure crypto and ideas (consesus model).

JoeKatz might even be right, it might change the way we think about money... this would be a long process however and bitcoin will become the #1 money before this happens.

When you think about it: why are we using scarce commodities as sound money? Isn't that kind-of unfair and/or unflexible (I know, I sound like a fucking keynesian now). Anyhow: both bitcoin (sound commodity money) and ripple (p2p flexible-supply currency) beat the current fiat regime on all accounts I can think of (except the ones involving force).

I'm definitely going to stick with bitcoin and I'm going to give ripple a long, hard and dedicated evaluation.

[grondilu]

For me ripple is an implementation of an infrastructure that can be used for Free Banking and also for "personal banking". It's also ideal for running community/local currencies.

I think it could be even better than that.  As I wrote on IRC, this is the closest thing from a decentralised banking system I've ever seen.

[molecular]

For me ripple is an implementation of an infrastructure that can be used for Free Banking and also for "personal banking". It's also ideal for running community/local currencies.

I think it could be even better than that.  As I wrote on IRC, this is the closest thing from a decentralised banking system I've ever seen.

well, if it weren't for the fed and "the banking cartel" + the govt' of the world, the current banking system would already be decentralized, no?

I think we can agree that ripple has the potential to free the banking system from central control. It can potentially make obsolete all currently existing fiat currencies and maybe even the commodity money (haven't made up my mind about that one).

And finally, the freedom of economic interaction, which is also coupled, like the freedom of communication, to the privacy of economic interaction. So let’s speak about these ideas that have been brewing in the cypherpunks since the 1990s of trying to provide this very important third freedom, which is the freedom of economic interaction.”

the bolded part is what ripple (and also bitcoin) are about imo... "people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it"... so maybe we could also be asking "why ripple" instead of "what is ripple".

btw: what about privacy regarding ripple?

[grondilu]

I think we can agree that ripple has the potential to free the banking system from central control. It can potentially make obsolete all currently existing fiat currencies

Yes, we can agree on that.

and maybe even the commodity money (haven't made up my mind about that one).

This is indeed a big question mark.   I would say that when the FED reserve gave up on the gold convertibility in 1971, the price of gold did not collapse.   So I guess a commodity money such as bitcoin will still make sense.  I will stick to it for long and medium term savings, anyway.

[herzmeister]

When you think about it: why are we using scarce commodities as sound money? Isn't that kind-of unfair and/or unflexible (I know, I sound like a fucking keynesian now).

yup, what I've been saying all along. Money is just information.

Scarce commodities, even Bitcoin, don't solve the problem of shortages in money supply like in this parable: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286017/euro-parable-john-derbyshire

The German tourist's 100 EUR were temporary extension of money supply. That's why we have business cycle policies. Keynes et al just didn't understand that credit has to be created by the people, bottom up, rather than top-down by a central bank.

[molecular]

When you think about it: why are we using scarce commodities as sound money? Isn't that kind-of unfair and/or unflexible (I know, I sound like a fucking keynesian now).

yup, what I've been saying all along. Money is just information.

Scarce commodities, even Bitcoin, don't solve the problem of shortages in money supply like in this parable: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286017/euro-parable-john-derbyshire

The German tourist's 100 EUR were temporary extension of money supply. That's why we have business cycle policies. Keynes et al just didn't understand that credit has to be created by the people, bottom up, rather than top-down by a central bank.

mach kein Fass auf, digger

I don't believe myself currently that "shortages in money supply" can be problematic. Further I hold the opinion that Keynes (or whatever group) just came up with that theory to funnel power towards the state and/or banking cartel.

I'm still an opponent of "managed money supply". This might be changing currently: My greatest criticism of a managed money supply is that it puts too much power in the hands of too few people. Clearly it's possible with ripple for that to be not the case (as you say "credit created by the people"). So I might differentiate my view here.

[becoin]

I'm still an opponent of "managed money supply".

This is the only correct and economically sound approach.

Money is just a measure of value. Just like meter is the measure of length and kilogram is the measure of weight! What is the point of "managing" the length of a meter or the weight of a kilogram? The only reason of doing that is for your personal gain to convince other people that something is longer/shorter or heavier/lighter than it is. Unless you believe that the so called "noble lie" is something good?

In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

yup, what I've been saying all along. Money is just information.

No.

Money, as already said, is a measure of value. You must have a standard for the measure. The result of the measurement process is the information. The tool you measure with is not just information. It must be a part of the objective reality around us.

[grondilu]

When you think about it: why are we using scarce commodities as sound money? Isn't that kind-of unfair and/or unflexible (I know, I sound like a fucking keynesian now).

yup, what I've been saying all along. Money is just information.

Scarce commodities, even Bitcoin, don't solve the problem of shortages in money supply

Yes, that's why credit is useful even in a economy with a commodity-based money.  And that's why Ripple and Bitcoin can work together.   But a credit has to be a promise to pay something at some point, something that is not a credit.  Otherwise the whole thing does not make sense. 

[herzmeister]

as already said, is a measure of value. You must have a standard for the measure.

no, that's a denomination then, a certain currency if you will, which may or may not fulfill your requirement for a stable, "objective standard". Which standard anyway? There could be several standards. A gold standard, an oil standard, a basket of commodities standard, etc...

That I contributed to society with 1 hour of programming is information. Now I need to store this information in some way that society agrees that I can redeem equivalent value from that society in the future. That's the problem that money is trying to solve. That we use gold, euros, dollars, bitcoins or whatever is just the current state of the available technology, toolset and the prevalent mindset in society.

[grondilu]

That I contributed to society with 1 hour of programming is information. Now I need to store this information in some way that society agrees that I can redeem equivalent value from that society in the future. That's the problem that money is trying to solve.

No.  It's not the actual nature of the the work that is stored in money, it's its value.

Your hour of programming was exchanged against something, usually a salary.  Those two things are thus considered, at least temporarily, of equal value.   Exchange defines an equivalence relation.   Now, an hour of programming from a better programmer would have been paid better.   This defines an order relation.  Equivalence and order relations are the basis of the concept of quantity.

So in a nutshell, money quantifies the value of exchanged goods and services.  That's why as a tool for measuring quantities, a fixed amount makes sense.

[grondilu]

Anyway, I think this project is awesome because at some point, all markets could work with such a system.   Imagine the bond and stock market being democratized like this.

[herzmeister]

Your hour of programming was exchanged against something, usually a salary.

not so fast. Salary of what? I'm not there yet in my example.

So in a nutshell, money quantifies the value of exchanged goods and services.

that's not what money is. That's what money does.

[grondilu]

Your hour of programming was exchanged against something, usually a salary.

not so fast. Salary of what? I'm not there yet in my example.

So in a nutshell, money quantifies the value of exchanged goods and services.

that's not what money is. That's what money does.

I'm not sure I see where you want to go here.  My point anyway was that to me money must have a fixed total amount, otherwise it does not make much sense.

If I receive a note of 10 XXX and I have no idea how many XXX there is in total then this 10 number means really nothing.  There could as well have been written "blue" on it, it would have meant the same.

What money does is what matters.  Like inches and centimeters.  They are two different units of measures, but they do the same thing, measuring lengths.   Now if some people want to use an elastic to measure lengths, they can, but to me it's silly.

[molecular]

That I contributed to society with 1 hour of programming is information. Now I need to store this information in some way that society agrees that I can redeem equivalent value from that society in the future. That's the problem that money is trying to solve.

No.  It's not the actual nature of the the work that is stored in money, it's its value.

Your hour of programming was exchanged against something, usually a salary.  Those two things are thus considered, at least temporarily, of equal value.   Exchange defines an equivalence relation.   Now, an hour of programming from a better programmer would have been paid better.   This defines an order relation.  Equivalence and order relations are the basis of the concept of quantity.

So in a nutshell, money quantifies the value of exchanged goods and services.  That's why as a tool for measuring quantities, a fixed amount makes sense.

the value of stuff is subjective. That's why we can exchange something voluntarily while everyone thinks he made a good deal.

[grondilu]

That I contributed to society with 1 hour of programming is information. Now I need to store this information in some way that society agrees that I can redeem equivalent value from that society in the future. That's the problem that money is trying to solve.

No.  It's not the actual nature of the the work that is stored in money, it's its value.

Your hour of programming was exchanged against something, usually a salary.  Those two things are thus considered, at least temporarily, of equal value.   Exchange defines an equivalence relation.   Now, an hour of programming from a better programmer would have been paid better.   This defines an order relation.  Equivalence and order relations are the basis of the concept of quantity.

So in a nutshell, money quantifies the value of exchanged goods and services.  That's why as a tool for measuring quantities, a fixed amount makes sense.

the value of stuff is subjective. That's why we can exchange something voluntarily while everyone thinks he made a good deal.

There are at least two meanings in the word value:  there is the "numerical" value, which I was referring to, and there is the "exchange" value, which indeed is subjective.

[grondilu]

Only 37 votes.  Come on guys;

[gmaxwell]

Where is the option for criticism unrelated to the IOU stuff?  On the premine, on the currently closed server software, on the 'consensus' model?

[grondilu]

Where is the option for criticism unrelated to the IOU stuff?  On the premine, on the currently closed server software, on the 'consensus' model?

It's tough and tedious to put all possibilities in one poll.  I tried to put just the main lines.

Edit:  added a "this poll sucks" answer.

[dust]

Where is the option for criticism unrelated to the IOU stuff?  On the premine, on the currently closed server software, on the 'consensus' model?

Voted "this poll sucks" for this reason.