ClosedCoin: Why is OC's Ripple Closed-Source?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

What is the justification for OpenCoin's secrecy in the development of their Ripple implementation? OC is supposed to have superior dev support compared to Bitcoin, yet they're afraid of competition?

It looks like they're rather fond of a version where they get to control where the money goes (with "input" from the community), and they hope to keep it closed long enough that it has too much momentum to fork by the time they release the source (if ever). That way they keep control by keeping half the market cap and deciding how to distribute the other half. Is this not totally against the spirit of open-source? Am I missing something?

EDIT: Note this wouldn't make it a scam, since no one is being tricked into buying XRP from OpenCoin, but it does make it seem like the giveaway-half-and-keep-half "distribution" scheme is to be interpreted as, "Make us filthy rich and we'll bootstrap Ripple into viability." I'm not even sure this is a bad idea: it may be that this really is the fastest way, but I doubt it. It seems like an attempt to ride on Bitcoin's success, but it looks like one of the core reasons for Bitcoin's success has gone unnoticed: people knew they could trust it, or didn't have to trust it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

They don't want someone to make Payple without the 50 billion Payples going to OpenCoin Inc for them to pay their developers ridiculous bonuses while reducing everyone else's wealth with currency debasement.

[ElectricMucus]

If the amount of haters is any indication ripple will be a great success. 

[neotrix]

I guess they fear a fork giving away 90% or 95% even 100% to communauty instead of 50%   which would simply make ripple died... They will release the source but don't expect it before ripple is big as bitcoin or more...So any forks then would fail due a so big popularity of ripple

[niko]

I don't care that it is closed-source, I care that at the same time on their Website they claim it is open-source. That's ugly, and it's hard for me to take them seriously.

[misterbigg]

They need to get the network to a certain size to make it impractical for anyone to hard-fork. The very first thing I would do if I had the source code would be to make this change:

1) OpenCoin updates the node software to reject transactions that transfer XRPs out of founder accounts. This effectively takes the 100 billion XRP (minus what has already been given away) out of circulation.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Well it could just be a difference in vision. A profit-motivated launch helps speed adoption (as long as it doesn't damage trust), but if Ripple is to succeed you'd think even 1% of the entire market cap to the devs would be plenty. Or 1% may even make people too upset, but 50%? It's almost as if they're planning to cash out very early on.

1% to OpenCoin and the rest mined Bitcoin-style sounds like something I could possibly get behind IF open-source

[misterbigg]

1% to OpenCoin and the rest mined Bitcoin-style sounds like something I could possibly get behind IF open-source

JoelKatz' flimsy objection to proof of work to create XRPs is that mining is "wasteful" and does not serve to secure the network in the same fashion as Bitcoin. Perhaps we can come up either with a strong counter argument, or a modification of the scheme to make the hashing serve an additional purpose?

[Beepbop]

Open source licenses generally don't require releasing the source of binaries that aren't released. In other words, if nobody else has a server running, they have no obligation to release the source to it. If, however, you get a binary from them - be it for free or paid - you have a right to the source for that particular binary.

The individual license document must be consulted, of course, and there are complications when products are assembled from products with different licenses.

A better question might be - perhaps closed source would actually raise the value of a cryptocurrency? If Diablo III was open source, would Diablo III gold be worth as much as it is now?

[HostFat]

To be a secure, indestructible, decentralized network, it must be open source. (so that other will make their own servers/clients)
A decentralized network is also needed to make them safe from legal actions against them.
They must be able to close the OpenCoin inc the next day of a legal attack, but they will maintain their XRP. (and they will have the found to continue develop the network/client/server privately)
All these things are needed to make the project working and then ... an open possibilities that XRP will get value in the future.
So you can be sure that they will release the source code of everything, it can't be otherwise. They need to do it.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

1% to OpenCoin and the rest mined Bitcoin-style sounds like something I could possibly get behind IF open-source

JoelKatz' flimsy objection to proof of work to create XRPs is that mining is "wasteful" and does not serve to secure the network in the same fashion as Bitcoin. Perhaps we can come up either with a strong counter argument, or a modification of the scheme to make the hashing serve an additional purpose?

Since Bitcoin mining happens to serve a dual function, fair distribution AND auditing, the former is often overlooked. "Wasted" power is the price that needs to be paid for agreeable distribution. If people consider that too wasteful, then mining either has to be made to do something more useful as well, or a different method can be considered. But central planning of the money supply Bernanke-style is unacceptable. If no other method besides mining is viable, and people find mining too wasteful to participate in Ripple, then maybe Ripple needs to be reworked from the ground up.

Bitcoin was only made possible because of PoW. Why in the first place did anyone think that they could base a currency on something other than PoW? I mean sure, if you had a great idea that is even more ingenious than PoW that would be one thing, but simply giving it away? Damn right it's a hard problem, and Bitcoin has been the only way to solve it so far. Solving it without PoW would take something even more ingenious, not some random giveaway. Is OpenCoin's business model really based on the hope that a breakthrough more clever than PoW will be discovered in time?

[misterbigg]

So you can be sure that they will release the source code of everything, it can't be otherwise. They need to do it.

I have no doubts that the source code will eventually be released, or else Ripple will fail. If Ripple fails, then the founders 50 billion XRP pre-mine will become worthless. You see, it is in the founders financial interests to eventually publish the source code.

However, it is also in their best interests not to release the source code at first. They need to wait until Ripple has critical mass so that it will be impractical for a hard fork to divest the owners of their 100 billion XRP premine. Right now people are buying and selling XRPs for Bitcoins. Real money is being invested in the system. The more money gets invested, the less likely it will be for anyone that holds XRPs to accept a hard fork or even to switch to a new system because doing so would make their XRP holdings worthless.

The manner in which Ripple was developed in secret, with a secret roster of employees, and a private stash of all 100 billion of XRPs, with closed source (and the promise of open source), and secret deals with the initial gateways, and an opaque promise to distribute XRPs, with strong ongoing public relations management from JoelKatz an OpenCoin employee with an undisclosed grant of initial XRPs, stinks to high heaven.

SHAME on OpenCoin for co-opting both the goodwill of the Bitcoin network and the great ideas of the original Ripple for their own personal gain!

[HostFat]

I see no problem on this, they have an idea (it seems a good idea) and they are investing their time and their actual money to develop it.
It's good that they will get something back for their investment.

Let's only point if the network will be center-powered-less
As it seems, it's going to be. By now I just see jealous people.

[misterbigg]

I see no problem on this

Imagine if Bitcoin was released with Satoshi holding all 21 million coins, telling everyone to start using his software so they could collecting mining fees, and that he was going to "give away" 10 million of those coins to "get the system started."

You don't see a problem with that?

[Monster Tent]

Ripple isnt much different to solidcoin/microcash at this stage.

[HostFat]

Imagine if Bitcoin was released with Satoshi holding all 21 million coins, telling everyone to start using his software so they could collecting mining fees, and that he was going to "give away" 10 million of those coins to "get the system started."

You don't see a problem with that?

It's another working way, it just need more time to spread and get used by people.
The bad thing of this is that Bitcoin is only an asset and a payment system, their are strictly connected.
So satoshi can be an easy target by institution and/or his own human weaknesses.

Ripple is different because of the consensus system and XRP aren't in anyway suggested as asset.
If you use them as a temporary payment system, it will be good. If you use them as asset, you are going to take a risk.
Anyway you have to remember that OpenCoin won't be able to create more XRP.
The network will be able to change the decimals by consensus.

By now I can't see bad things about the Ripple system, if there are you need to convince me more

[Beepbop]

Ripple's main challenge is to achieve a critical mass of IOUs, I think.
Perhaps they'd be better served with a transaction cost in small decimals of a percent, that would increase as IOU-links became longer? I.e. if I pay 20 USD to a sister's class mate via ripple it costs me only half a cent, but if I pay to some guy in Indonesia with a super-high Bacon number, I'd pay 5 cents?

[misterbigg]

Ripple is different because...XRP aren't in anyway suggested as asset.

That means that OpenCoin has done its job at public relations. The simple fact is that XRPs are a better form of currency than Bitcoin (if you ignore the pre-mine). I explain why here.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I see no problem on this, they have an idea (it seems a good idea) and they are investing their time and their actual money to develop it.
It's good that they will get something back for their investment.

Well they can do whatever they want, but how many people are going to really get on board (and stay on) if they realize OC is keeping half the XRP market cap for itself? Half is just way too much. 1% or 0.1% might be agreeable, but half?? (And Soviet-style control over the rest, with a Communist-era breadline in the XRP giveaway thread.)  

[HostFat]

Well they can do whatever they want, but how many people are going to really get on board (and stay on) if they realize OC is keeping half the XRP market cap for itself? Half is just way too much. 1% or 0.1% might be agreeable, but half?? And anyway tgere is no fair way to distribute the rest without PoW, so PoW cannot be avoided.

It works even if they take the 80% or more (and give the possibility to change the decimals by consensus system)
You are just jealous

Use Bitcoin as currency/asset, and use Ripple as exchange/credit system.

If Ripple will fail to be as a good exchange/credit system, you will have the source code to make your own with your own rules.
By now it don't see it bad, and I'll invest my time to better understand it and find where it can be useful.