Ripple or Bitcoin

[timeofmind]

Here is the advice on how to choose which nodes you should connect to with your ripple peer: http://ripple.com/wiki/Unique_Node_List:

Trusted Core

UNL entries may have a trust score:

    10: source: came with the client
    5: source: by trusted referral
    2: source: random web browsing

We periodically, poll our sources. If they mention a new node with a score over an amount, we add the node to our trusted core set.

In Bitcoin, my client just connects out to many nodes and chooses the block chain that has the most provable work... so much simpler and less centralized. When you have to know what nodes you can trust, then this drives a tendancy towards centralization. Anybody can forward me the blockchain that has the most provable work... I really don't care who that is, what is important is that it has the most work in it, so I'm guaranteed that most of the network is focusing on that chain. With UNL... there is a high probability that the most trusted nodes (ie. nodes that come with the client, will have the greatest power over transactions)

[1714312954]

1714312954

[timeofmind]

Here is the advice on how to choose which nodes you should connect to with your ripple peer: http://ripple.com/wiki/Unique_Node_List:

Trusted Core

UNL entries may have a trust score:

    10: source: came with the client
    5: source: by trusted referral
    2: source: random web browsing

We periodically, poll our sources. If they mention a new node with a score over an amount, we add the node to our trusted core set.

In Bitcoin, my client just connects out to many nodes and chooses the block chain that has the most provable work... so much simpler and less centralized. When you have to know what nodes you can trust, then this drives a tendancy towards centralization. Anybody can forward me the blockchain that has the most provable work... I really don't care who that is, what is important is that it has the most work in it, so I'm guaranteed that most of the network is focusing on that chain. With UNL... there is a high probability that the most trusted nodes (ie. nodes that come with the client, will have the greatest power over transactions)

So what happens when those nodes that came with the client, and most people are connecting to, become taken over by authorities and start dropping all transactions that are suspected to be involved with Iran? Huh? I can no longer purchase my magic carpet with Ripples?

[nameface]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here, since this is a thread comparing Bitcoin to Ripple... isn't it a big drawback that Ripple must depend on UNLs in order to fend off sybil attacks? This UNL thing seems rather cumbersome and centralized.

With UNL, you are trusting people to tell you which nodes you should connect to. I thought one of the main reasons the bitcoin invention was considered so great was because it came up with a way to get around the need for cumbersome UNLs by using proof-of-work, and connecting out to many nodes.

The network is made up reputable parties, and according to the wiki "immune" to Sybil attacks :/ https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus#Split_personalities

[timeofmind]

The network is made up reputable parties, and according to the wiki "immune" to Sybil attacks :/ https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus#Split_personalities

And your point? You are just repeating what I already just pointed out.

Edit: The point is that it has to rely on "reputable parties" in order to fend of Sybil attacks. Bitcoin was an innovation because it did not have to rely on "reputable parties" and now Ripple is taking a step back in the opposite direction. That was the beauty of proof-of-work. Now Ripple comes along and says "Hey, I know, we can just rely on trusting certain people! Who needs proof-of-work!"

[nameface]

So what happens when those nodes that came with the client, and most people are connecting to, become taken over by authorities and start dropping all transactions that are suspected to be involved with Iran? Huh? I can no longer purchase my magic carpet with Ripples?

I'm assuming a state would have jurisdiction on their local gateways, but not on the global network.

Is it that easy for a superpower to go in and shape the whole network? Couldn't gateways in the Middle East facilitate the carpet transactions despite a fascist state's attempt to block them?

[MPOE-PR]

I know i shouldn't post on here, but well, this thread has been spoiled so much at this point that it doesn't matter anymore, so i might as well try to make it more entertaining.

We can all make a lot of money with this if we can get Joe to start buying.

That's more a Ripple's way of thinking. Bitcoin was not created to take advantage of "Joe Regular". Enrichment of early adopters at the expense of Joe is a collateral damage and would have been avoided if there had been any way to avoid it. There isn't.

We need better ideas. The future is SO ours.

That's so "american". One sentence: "let's make this Bitcoin Ponzi scheme bigger so we can all get richer!". Next one: "Let's make the world a better place together! Let's fix what isn't broken!".
Mix the two together and you get a recipe for disaster.

Obviously you're a terrorist.

[nameface]

The network is made up reputable parties, and according to the wiki "immune" to Sybil attacks :/ https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus#Split_personalities

And your point? You are just repeating what I already just pointed out.

Edit: The point is that it has to rely on "reputable parties" in order to fend of Sybil attacks. Bitcoin was an innovation because it did not have to rely on "reputable parties" and now Ripple is taking a step back in the opposite direction.

I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move everything forward.

To me, Ripple's failure would have no impact on Bitcoin, and Ripple's success could mean a good chance for Bitcoin to grow.

[timeofmind]

So what happens when those nodes that came with the client, and most people are connecting to, become taken over by authorities and start dropping all transactions that are suspected to be involved with Iran? Huh? I can no longer purchase my magic carpet with Ripples?

I'm assuming a state would have jurisdiction on their local gateways, but not on the global network.

Is it that easy for a superpower to go in and shape the whole network? Couldn't gateways in the Middle East facilitate the carpet transactions despite a fascist state's attempt to block them?

This has nothing to do with gateways. This is about how servers achieve consensus on what transactions are valid and what is the correct order of transactions. All servers must reach this consensus for there to be a unified ledger of all transactions.

[timeofmind]

The network is made up reputable parties, and according to the wiki "immune" to Sybil attacks :/ https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus#Split_personalities

And your point? You are just repeating what I already just pointed out.

Edit: The point is that it has to rely on "reputable parties" in order to fend of Sybil attacks. Bitcoin was an innovation because it did not have to rely on "reputable parties" and now Ripple is taking a step back in the opposite direction.

I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move everything forward.

To me, Ripple's failure would have no impact on Bitcoin, and Ripple's success could mean a good chance for Bitcoin to grow.

Ya. It just means that I have to rely on Bitcoin to buy magic carpets from Iran and to make donations to wikileaks. But I still think that Ripple could be made better by incorporating superior technologies like Bitcoin with the concept of gateways, or some other method of increasing the decentralization of exchanges.

[timeofmind]

I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move everything forward.

To me, Ripple's failure would have no impact on Bitcoin, and Ripple's success could mean a good chance for Bitcoin to grow.

Ya. It just means that I have to rely on Bitcoin to buy magic carpets from Iran and to make donations to wikileaks. But I still think that Ripple could be made better by incorporating superior technologies like Bitcoin with the concept of gateways, or some other method of increasing the decentralization of exchanges.

On the other hand, the only service I've needed to convert bitcoins between dollars so far has been localbitcoins, and I'm not sure what would motivate me to use a ripple gateway for that purpose. I can understand the benefit of ripple gateways as a stable pricing mechanism for the whole network, but from an individual's perspective, I don't see what benefits it offers. People already have many places they can go to convert dollars to bitcoin so I'm not sure where the motivation will come from to bring mass adoption of the Ripple system. If you were to draw a comparison between Ripple adoption and Bitcoin adoption, what new benefits would you say Ripple offers the individual over what options are already available for the individual? What drives the individual to choose Ripple over all other options? For Bitcoin, this is incredibly clear to the end consumer, without any need to understand how it works; it makes payment a hell of a lot easier than all tradition methods before it and lowers fees. What does Ripple have to bring to the table that is a clear benefit to an individual who has not looked at the Ripple technology and has no understanding of how Ripple is supposed to benefit the world? If I want to convert currencies, I would go to a business that offers currency conversion, I would then give them one currency and expect for them to hand to me the currency I asked for... why would I care how this business does this for me? As the end consumer, all I care about is that I'm given the currency I asked for in exchange. So why does the end-consumer care about Ripple anymore than any other crypto-currency?

[nameface]

I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move everything forward.

To me, Ripple's failure would have no impact on Bitcoin, and Ripple's success could mean a good chance for Bitcoin to grow.

Ya. It just means that I have to rely on Bitcoin to buy magic carpets from Iran and to make donations to wikileaks. But I still think that Ripple could be made better by incorporating superior technologies like Bitcoin with the concept of gateways, or some other method of increasing the decentralization of exchanges.

On the other hand, the only service I've needed to convert bitcoins between dollars so far has been localbitcoins, and I'm not sure what would motivate me to use a ripple gateway for that purpose. I can understand the benefit of ripple gateways as a stable pricing mechanism for the whole network, but from an individual's perspective, I don't see what benefits it offers. People already have many places they can go to convert dollars to bitcoin so I'm not sure where the motivation will come from to bring mass adoption of the Ripple system. If you were to draw a comparison between Ripple adoption and Bitcoin adoption, what new benefits would you say Ripple offers the individual over what options are already available for the individual? What drives the individual to choose Ripple over all other options? For Bitcoin, this is incredibly clear to the end consumer, without any need to understand how it works; it makes payment a hell of a lot easier than all tradition methods before it and lowers fees. What does Ripple have to bring to the table that is a clear benefit to an individual who has not looked at the Ripple technology and has no understanding of how Ripple is supposed to benefit the world? If I want to convert currencies, I would go to a business that offers currency conversion, I would then give them one currency and expect for them to hand to me the currency I asked for... why would I care how this business does this for me? As the end consumer, all I care about is that I'm given the currency I asked for in exchange. So why does the end-consumer care about Ripple anymore than any other crypto-currency?

The receiver of fiat IOUs needs the services of a gateway to receive fiat, and they must pay a fee. But it's the same with Bitcoin. "Competitive" BTC to fiat rates today provide poor value to the consumer.

If Ripple becomes the new platform for the "businesses that offers currency conversion", costs will be slashed for exchanges and gateways and rates will be much lower for everyone.

You could send your cousin in Mumbai rupees directly to their Ripple wallet paying virtually no fee. Of course, they'd have to pay a fee to get their rupee IUOs out of the system. But on the whole, the fees would be much lower than they are today.

Bitcoin can only work to supplant other currencies slowly over time. It will be a long process. Bitcoin = apples, Ripple = oranges imo.

[timeofmind]

The receiver of fiat IOUs needs the services of a gateway to receive fiat, and they must pay a fee. But it's the same with Bitcoin. "Competitive" BTC to fiat rates today provide poor value to the consumer.

If Ripple becomes the new platform for the "businesses that offers currency conversion", costs will be slashed for exchanges and gateways and rates will be much lower for everyone.

You could send your cousin in Mumbai rupees directly to their Ripple wallet paying virtually no fee. Of course, they'd have to pay a fee to get their rupee IUOs out of the system. But on the whole, the fees would be much lower than they are today.

Bitcoin can only work to supplant other currencies slowly over time. It will be a long process. Bitcoin = apples, Ripple = oranges imo.

Right. But there was no reason for Ripple to base its transaction system on UNLs and consensus. This transaction system is just inferior to Bitcoin. They could have easily used the Bitcoin transaction system (ie. hashcash/proof-of-work) to record all transactions in Ripple, but they chose not to... instead we have to rely on "trusted" nodes in order to fend off sybil attacks. If people find the Ripple gateway system to really be a benefit, I think it would make sense to build it on top of Bitcoin protocol. As far as ripples (ie. the coin)... that seems to be just another currency with an inferior transaction system.

[timeofmind]

The receiver of fiat IOUs needs the services of a gateway to receive fiat, and they must pay a fee. But it's the same with Bitcoin. "Competitive" BTC to fiat rates today provide poor value to the consumer.

If Ripple becomes the new platform for the "businesses that offers currency conversion", costs will be slashed for exchanges and gateways and rates will be much lower for everyone.

You could send your cousin in Mumbai rupees directly to their Ripple wallet paying virtually no fee. Of course, they'd have to pay a fee to get their rupee IUOs out of the system. But on the whole, the fees would be much lower than they are today.

Bitcoin can only work to supplant other currencies slowly over time. It will be a long process. Bitcoin = apples, Ripple = oranges imo.

Right. But there was no reason for Ripple to base its transaction system on UNLs and consensus. This transaction system is just inferior to Bitcoin. They could have easily used the Bitcoin transaction system (ie. hashcash/proof-of-work) to record all transactions in Ripple, but they chose not to... instead we have to rely on "trusted" nodes in order to fend off sybil attacks. If people find the Ripple gateway system to really be a benefit, I think it would make sense to build it on top of Bitcoin protocol. As far as ripples (ie. the coin)... that seems to be just another currency with an inferior transaction system.

I can see how this idea of allowing someone to pickup their money in their local currency, and lowering transaction fees could be favorable to people though; although, it depends. It just may not be enough of an advantage over sending someone Bitcoin, which they can then exchange for their local currency to catch on. We'll see.

[ivanc]

That's so "american". One sentence: "let's make this Bitcoin Ponzi scheme bigger so we can all get richer!". Next one: "Let's make the world a better place together! Let's fix what isn't broken!".
Mix the two together and you get a recipe for disaster.

Obviously you're a terrorist.

Thanks god I'm not muslim... oh wait, are atheists still considered as terrorists on the other side of the atlantic?

[ivanc]

By the way, if this thread was not enough to entertain you guys, please follow up on this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208985.0

[mmeijeri]

I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move everything forward.

It would only be a step backward if the IOU system was all there was, but it isn't, there is also XRP, which is a (small) step forward compared to BTC. More importantly, the IOU system combined with the distributed exchange is a major leap forward compared to Mt Gox and its competitors. So in effect Ripple is a huge step forward, and not a step backward.

[MPOE-PR]

By the way, if this thread was not enough to entertain you guys, please follow up on this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208985.0

It is kinda funny how this thread has pretty much died the sad death of becoming a discussion among the promoters themselves. Sort of like this other one.

[N12]

It appears that as prices for Ripples rise (they are currently valued higher than Bitcoin's market cap), OpenCoin will reduce the rate of distribution instead of sticking to a plan. Back when they first began handing out in this forum, they sent 50k XRP. They reduced this slowly, and now they are giving out 1k XRP. So, I believe they think that being valued over Bitcoin market cap is a fair price, or that they think they must maintain it to continue generating profits selling their coins.

Because OpenCoin has no plans in monetary policy and likely spontaneously changes their plans based on where the price is and where they would like it to go, it is probably prone to bubbles, even more so than Bitcoin, where the block chain relentlessly distributes according to an algorithm, no matter what.

[oakpacific]

It appears that as prices for Ripples rise (they are currently valued higher than Bitcoin's market cap), OpenCoin will reduce the rate of distribution instead of sticking to a plan. Back when they first began handing out in this forum, they sent 50k XRP. They reduced this slowly, and now they are giving out 1k XRP. So, I believe they think that being valued over Bitcoin market cap is a fair price, or that they think they must maintain it to continue generating profits selling their coins.

Because OpenCoin has no plans in monetary policy and likely spontaneously changes their plans based on where the price is and where they would like it to go, it is probably prone to bubbles, even more so than Bitcoin, where the block chain relentlessly distributes according to an algorithm, no matter what.

They set themselves up between a rock and a hard place, if they want to maintain the price, at this rate of distirbution it will take more than half a century to inject the 50 billion XRPs they promised into the market, if they go quicker.....

[N12]

They set themselves up between a rock and a hard place, if they want to maintain the price, at this rate of distirbution it will take more than half a century to inject the 50 billion XRPs they promised into the market, if they go quicker.....

When I asked, they said they wanted to do distribute the 50 billion within 2 years. Obviously, they had a change of plans.

Lots of people are going to get hurt on this once it pops as they prolong it, and I do think this is on the verge of scam now in how intransparently and arbitrarily they issue XRPs.