Ripple: A Distributed Exchange for Bitcoin

[zemario]

More like pre-printed.

[1714973988]

1714973988

[1714973988]

1714973988

[1714973988]

1714973988

[1714973988]

1714973988

[QuantPlus]

you all know that if you opened the source, there will not be much validators who joins your network, but there will lots of alternative Ripple-XRP system show up, and the ones who distribute the XRP in a predictable and fairly way will win the competition, and at the last, the 100% pre-mined XRP will has no value.

As a validator, I would prefer OpenCoin have a way to make money and pay lots of developers' salaries instead of the Bitcoin open source model where no company is able to profit directly and they have to go around begging for donations to pay Gavin.

this is just a sleezy way to describe the situation and represents a true lack of understanding of what open source represents.  as if Bitcoin is having a problem with developers.  pffft.

Bitcoin is doing fantastic with it's open source model and this weekend's Conference showed just that.

This might have some merit if BTC was competing with LTC...
But it's now competing with Google, EBay, Amazon, PayPal, and the Big Banks...
And Gavin comes across as a Fed Trojan Horse anyway...
Gavin is on record as supporting the "regulation of air guitars".

I have yet to see an intelligent discussion...
About WHY the people who control Gox are focusing their energies on Ripple...
These guys and their Venture backers are Master Strategists.

They must view Gox as the dinosaur that it is...
But, no worries, BTC has BitStamp and the Slovenian Banking System.

[TimJBenham]

I have yet to see an intelligent discussion...
About WHY the people who control Gox are focusing their energies on Ripple...

Are they?

They must view Gox as the dinosaur that it is...
But, no worries, BTC has BitStamp and the Slovenian Banking System.

They've held it together so far. They're obviously learning about running an exchange as they go.

[themusicgod1]

What you said is completely irrelevant. The current facts are:
- Ripple is NOT open source (lie !)
- Ripple is NOT decentralized (lie !)
- Ripple does NOT use the same underlying cryptography as Bitcoin (lie !)
- Ripple can print any amount of XRP they want at any time (especially if government "asks" them to)

Regulators will not kill ripple ? It is EXTREMELY EASY for regulators to kill Ripple. All they need to do is force OpenCoin to inflate ripple into oblivion (or they can just send them to Guantanamo - whichever is easier).

Also if current Ripple is closed by government and they actually open the sources, the new - open sourced version will be something completely different (as it will not be centralized).

First of all, you have no grounds to call me a liar. 

Misunderstanding. I did not call YOU a liar, i called Ripple/OpenCoins liars.

we can argue back and forth on #1 (is 'unreleased open source' 'open source' enough?)

There is nothing to argue about. It is either open source now or it isn't. And it isn't so it is logical that IT IS NOT.

, but even given those caveats Ripple is definitely decentralized, and you're confused if you think otherwise.

There is nothing decentralized about ripple if they can CENTRALLY print more XRPs (which they admitted themselves BTW).
It is simple logic and you are just wrong. Nothing to argue about at all.

This only works if the network accepts it...

Bullshit. As long as there is no open sourced server code, the network can do nothing but accept it.
It is not possible to FORK Ripple, so how can the network *NOT* accept it ? Does it have any choice ?

The only real choice that is given is to stop using Ripple.

Unreleased software can be open source. Do you have a binary of the server?  If not you do not have the right to the source.  It will be possible to fork it once it is released...and in fact an attempt at doing so is planned.

Xrp is an unimportant detail.  Even if opencoin did print more...which they won't, it doesn't matter.  The source is important and it is important that they release it but concerns about the amount of xrp are a distraction at best.  Don't invest in them as they are not made for that purpose.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Unreleased software can be open source.

No. You do not understand what "open source" means. Open Source is not when you get access to the source.
Open Source is when AUTHOR publicly states the license it is on, no other way.

Otherwise author can always sue you for illegally distributing his intellectual property.

For example: there is a lot of people and organizations who have access to Windows source, but Windows is NOT open source. It is NOT the same.

Do you have a binary of the server?  If not you do not have the right to the source.

Do you actually know what you are talking about ?
Because i hate wasting time on people who talk random crap.

It will be possible to fork it once it is released...and in fact an attempt at doing so is planned.
Xrp is an unimportant detail.  Even if opencoin did print more...which they won't, it doesn't matter.  (...) but concerns about the amount of xrp are a distraction at best.  

That's in the future (or one of possible futures). We are here and now - let's talk about the present.

The source is important and it is important that they release it

That's what I am saying. But they are NOT releasing it yet while claiming to be Open Source. And that is simple scam.

[themusicgod1]

First of all there is no such thing as "intellectual property".  You obviously any subtle treatment of this subject is going to be lost on you if you believe in such a misleading frame.

In the present xrp is cheap and plentiful and the only way you are going to run into issues is if you are an exceptionally social person or very broke.

Unreleased software can be open source.

No. You do not understand what "open source" means. Open Source is not when you get access to the source.
Open Source is when AUTHOR publicly states the license it is on, no other way.

Otherwise author can always sue you for illegally distributing his intellectual property.

For example: there is a lot of people and organizations who have access to Windows source, but Windows is NOT open source. It is NOT the same.

Do you have a binary of the server?  If not you do not have the right to the source.

Do you actually know what you are talking about ?
Because i hate wasting time on people who talk random crap.

It will be possible to fork it once it is released...and in fact an attempt at doing so is planned.
Xrp is an unimportant detail.  Even if opencoin did print more...which they won't, it doesn't matter.  (...) but concerns about the amount of xrp are a distraction at best.  

That's in the future (or one of possible futures). We are here and now - let's talk about the present.

The source is important and it is important that they release it

That's what I am saying. But they are NOT releasing it yet while claiming to be Open Source. And that is simple scam.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

First of all there is no such thing as "intellectual property". 

I know, I do not believe in "intellectual property". But still, lawyers & governments do.

In the present xrp is cheap and plentiful and the only way you are going to run into issues is if you are an exceptionally social person or very broke.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

[xchrix]

discussing if ripple is open source or not is not the topic of this thread i think
its about if ripple is good for trading bitcoin on it because (hopefully someday) it has a distributed orderbook on all servers running rippled (today only 2 i think)

so DDOS attacks are not working anymore i guess. the only thing is you have to trust the gateway which is holding your BTC.. but its the same as trusting mtgox oder bitstamp or someone else these days..

[zemario]

I think more so that you can't release the code because others would simply fork it and make your code now worth less than before. Call it a form of dilution. You folks as a business have a vested interest as well as your investors not to open the source code.

This doesn't sound unreasonable. Let's pretend that its true - OpenCoin is waiting until enough assets are in the current ledger chain to where any fork will not have enough gateway support to be viable. So what? Is it wrong that OpenCoin wants to profit from their work?

It's not wrong in any way. I agree with you.
But is that really how opencoin presents itself to the world? I say: no.

The guys making ripple have the word 'open' in their comapny's name. They claim to be open, they say they are going to open source the code.

I don't understand what use does an honest business has for such promises. As a programmer, my opinion on the whole discussion about the code license is: code or STFU. That's what free software is, code, not promises, thank you. Honestly, if you want to earn respect on the free software community, come forward with your code, not with useless promises.

There is also this huge cloud of fog around what the project really is. A lot of vague info, a lot of "jump in now and understand latter".

The code is a detail though. What I think people need to realize is that opencoin wants people to use a kind of money that they (opencoin) can mint at will. Why is this not stated in their website with bit red letters as a warning? It is by far the most important details of the project. If even after that people want to use it, then good luck with your business.

[Sukrim]

What I think people need to realize is that opencoin wants people to use a kind of money that they (opencoin) can mint at will.

This is not true and would be visible immediately to all participants in the Ripple network.

It is not as hard as in bitcoin to change network rules, but it is possible, yes. It is however a premise of the whole system that 100 billion XRP are being issued, just like the 21 million cap of Bitcoin. Both numbers can be changed (in Bitcoin about 3-4 pool operators are able to force that upon the entire network), both very likely are not going to be changed.

Nevertheless there is probably a far percentage of XRP in circulation than of BTC - so even if they are not going to be minted, they can be distributed at will.

[bluemeanie1]

Seems I was under the wrong impression that ripple was not open source, dunno why.

The server is not open source yet. Once the server is open source, we'll have to obtain a consensus on every feature change that affects what transactions are valid or what effects they have, just like Bitcoin does. I used to say we sometimes make those kinds of changes three times a day. We're probably down to once a week at most now.

how will the server be licensed?

how will this consensus be determined?

[bluemeanie1]

I've solicited technical solutions to this problem on this forum. It would be awesome if Bitcoins could be used on other decentralized systems without having to trade on the blockchain (both because it would be faster and because it could enable things like microtransactions) or trust a central authority to hold the Bitcoins. I've yet to hear one. I'm still looking.

have you looked at this?  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwUFHE6KYsM0ZkxLVmFwbXQ3ck0/edit?usp=sharing

[bluemeanie1]

Saying that too much community input would slow down your development is a cop-out because you could release the code for people to review and ignore input...but that would also be somewhat awkward ignoring customer base input.

We can't release the code for people to review and ignore input. If we ignored input, we'd be in the minority and be ignored. Ripple is based on consensus. As soon as the code is open sourced, other people start running validators, and people start trusting those validators, the network will be run by that consensus. We can make suggestions, but if they are rejected by that consensus, if we follow them, we will be ignored just like any Bitcoin transaction that doesn't meet the rules is ignored.

why does it seem that all these digital currency companies springing up all seem to have some kind of idiosyncratic interpretation of what 'open source' means?

open source means quite simply:  the source is open for all to see.  There is really no justification for why you would want to open source it later, unless of course you were waiting to file patents.

[JoelKatz]

open source means quite simply:  the source is open for all to see.  There is really no justification for why you would want to open source it later, unless of course you were waiting to file patents.

We've explained this several times in many places. There's a very important reason not to release the source too early -- once the source is released, the system is very hard to change.

Imagine if Bitcoin had gone open source before the decision to decrease the block reward was made. Groups that had invested in mining might oppose the choice to make the block reward schedule decrease, even if that was in the long-term best interests of almost everyone. We chose a plan that allows us to get community input while the design can still be changed, and we are still making changes to the design based on community input. (We believe we now know what the design will be when we open source. So we're not changing that design, just finishing it.)

As soon as the source is open, design changes will require convincing the community. And even some design changes that almost everyone wants may be very difficult to do.

[HurtK]

what seems strange to me is that after giveaway the XRP appreciated by 20%

[xchrix]

what seems strange to me is that after giveaway the XRP appreciated by 20%

indeed. i thought the price will fall down because everybody is selling his giveaway

[Sukrim]

Me too, I wanted to wait for a shortage in BTC and then sell a few and buy back cheaply a few weeks later. Either others had the same idea (why are they selling at a loss then though?!) or *tinfoilhat* OpenCoin is buying back it's XRP or there is actual demand for XRP.

[bluemeanie1]

open source means quite simply:  the source is open for all to see.  There is really no justification for why you would want to open source it later, unless of course you were waiting to file patents.

We've explained this several times in many places. There's a very important reason not to release the source too early -- once the source is released, the system is very hard to change.

Imagine if Bitcoin had gone open source before the decision to decrease the block reward was made. Groups that had invested in mining might oppose the choice to make the block reward schedule decrease, even if that was in the long-term best interests of almost everyone. We chose a plan that allows us to get community input while the design can still be changed, and we are still making changes to the design based on community input. (We believe we now know what the design will be when we open source. So we're not changing that design, just finishing it.)

As soon as the source is open, design changes will require convincing the community. And even some design changes that almost everyone wants may be very difficult to do.

And what will stop people from changing these terms after you release it as open source?

I've been working with open source for over a decade, including p2p systems and I've never heard of such a justification in my life.  This isn't the only peculiar thing about the Ripple project.

Seems you didn't offer to answer my other question: how will the server be licensed?

[zemario]

What I think people need to realize is that opencoin wants people to use a kind of money that they (opencoin) can mint at will.

This is not true and would be visible immediately to all participants in the Ripple network.

It is not as hard as in bitcoin to change network rules, but it is possible, yes. It is however a premise of the whole system that 100 billion XRP are being issued, just like the 21 million cap of Bitcoin. Both numbers can be changed (in Bitcoin about 3-4 pool operators are able to force that upon the entire network), both very likely are not going to be changed.

Nevertheless there is probably a far percentage of XRP in circulation than of BTC - so even if they are not going to be minted, they can be distributed at will.

uuuh.. what?
Are you serious or just trolling? honest question.

With my own computer I can verify that whatever BTC blockchain I have will consit of transactions over a fixed number of coins that I know. It's a huge stretch to refer to an hijack of 50%+ of the network as a normal way to change the number of coins.

Also, it's not '3-4 pool operators' is 50%+ of hashing power. Those are not the same thing at all. A pool operator can't do shit if miners pull out. Also, we don't know how the mining distribution will look like. Quite frankly I can't see the price going up while mining gets concentrated in fewer pools. No way high stake holders will allow that.

Also, you never explained why 'it's not true' that XRPs cannot be issued at will. Explain me how I can be sure of that. We all know and can verify the proof of work of every last bitcoin. What about XRPs, how can I be sure opencoin doesn't start issuing them at will?

[bluemeanie1]

Also, you never explained why 'it's not true' that XRPs cannot be issued at will. Explain me how I can be sure of that. We all know and can verify the proof of work of every last bitcoin. What about XRPs, how can I be sure opencoin doesn't start issuing them at will?

good points.  Here's another similar question for Ripple: if the entire system is going to be open source, what's stopping people from forming an entire separate network with a new set of XRPs?  Clearly these things already have value for some reason, or are being treated as such.  In an open source scenario, I can create another set of XRPs, let's call them MeanieDollars, that do the exact same thing as XRPs.  That is, if Ripple will indeed go open source.