http://ripplescam.org/

[qxzn]

Once the code is open sourced, anyone want to speculate on the alt-ripple networks? Why should we use the infrastructure that opencoin presents instead of some clone?  Maybe the clone will have faster transaction times or something .  Time to go reserve pipple.com and dipple.com?

[1714856655]

1714856655

[1714856655]

1714856655

[1714856655]

1714856655

[1714856655]

1714856655

[1714856655]

1714856655

[bitchess]

Agreed. On the flip side, if Ripple ever does look like overtaking Bitcoin, it will give those with large stashes of BTC an incentive to facilitate development of a rival system based purely on Bitcoin. Competition is good, it will drive prices down, drive innovation and keep everyone honest.

That is an interesting point.  

In my view if Ripple>BTC, the majority of people that have large stashes of BTC will just exchange their stashes of BTC and buy ripple.  (I don't have large stash but am in this camp.)  There is nothing intrinsic about BTC in and of itself that can or ever will be able to prevent this.  This is one of the reasons why BTC valuations are so volatile.

People who are active in the Bitcoin community, miners, etc. will probably be in the group of people you talk about.

[mmeijeri]

Maybe even the people with large stashes of BTC, since its value will drop rapidly as people try to cash out. Innovating on top of Bitcoin could be a way to preserve the value. Even if the core protocol of Bitcoin were to need modifications to allow Ripple-like functionality, it could be done through proof of burn, keeping the exchange rate fixed at 1:1 for a predetermined period.

[Red]

It's hard to judge whether or not ripple is designed with intent to be a Bitcoin killer without looking at the code/protocol specifics.  If I were OpenCoin, I would obviously design it with the potential to kill Bitcoin if possible.  Right now we are just going by the assurances of its employees that it's not or "unlikely" going to replace bitcoin even though there is potential.

The specifics are available on the Ripple wiki. If you understand the internal design and mechanics of BitCoin you will see that the design and mechanics of Ripple are superior in every way. It is like BitCoin (the code base) 2.0. It would be trivial to make BitCoin (the coin) better, faster, cheaper by converting the existing BitCoin block chain into a new Ripple (the code base) ledger.

That is the obvious next step for BitCoin once the Ripple code base is released. Most everything important on the BitCoin Hard Fork Wishlist is already done in the Ripple code base. Doing so would have one really interesting side effect.

Ripple (the code base) has zero use for the "mining" part of current BitCoin miner's expensive rigs. It would be trivial to mod the Ripple code base to distribute 25 BTC among those who helped validate transactions in a given 10 minute period. However, the validation chore can be done with the power of a cell phone. (maybe a little exaggeration, but certainly with the old laptop you recently upgraded)

Goodbye, GPU cards, FPGAs, and ASICs. But really... Would that be a bad thing?

[bitchess]

Maybe even the people with large stashes of BTC, since its value will drop rapidly as people try to cash out. Innovating on top of Bitcoin could be a way to preserve the value. Even if the core protocol of Bitcoin were to need modifications to allow Ripple-like functionality, it could be done through proof of burn, keeping the exchange rate fixed at 1:1 for a predetermined period.

I don't really get proof of burn because that link is hard to read.  Fine, the formula simulates a mining rig, but what about the proof of work property that makes it hard for an attacker to replicate the block chain from scratch and double spend?  In other words, what specifically makes it difficult for the attacker to perform an attack?  

Also, the whole expense replication is complex because it uses the value of BTC itself to represent real resources.  This has an unknown affect (to me) on how the valuation of BTC would be affected.  Who determines the value of c?  A central authority?

Anyway haven't thought about it that much but those are the initial impressions.

[mmeijeri]

I was thinking just of the use of Coin-burning as a tool for transition between cryptocurrencies, not necessarily to using proof of burn in that new currency after the transition. The existing Bitcoin blockchain can be used as algorithmic proof that someone gave up their BTC, and the new blockchain can then credit the same amount to the corresponding new address. In that way the value of the old BTC wouldn't drop as it is replaced by the new BTC.

[bitchess]

I was thinking just of the use of Coin-burning as a tool for transition between cryptocurrencies, not necessarily to using proof of burn in that new currency after the transition. The existing Bitcoin blockchain can be used as algorithmic proof that someone gave up their BTC, and the new blockchain can then credit the same amount to the corresponding new address. In that way the value of the old BTC wouldn't drop as it is replaced by the new BTC.

That is interesting and exciting.  It's like a formal upgrade mechanism in our decentralized environment.  Kind of like how European countries worked hard to cutover all their fiats into Euro.

People need to further flush this out.

[mmeijeri]

The nice thing is that no one would be forced to switch, you could continue to use the old blockchain as long as it had sufficient non-evil hashing power behind it. Any number of potential replacements would then enter free competition with each other and with the original BTC. It's possible more than one would survive.

And to get this back to Ripple, I believe Ripple will happily find paths that convert currencies along the way, which should help lower barriers to entry for new currencies.

[bitchess]

It's hard to judge whether or not ripple is designed with intent to be a Bitcoin killer without looking at the code/protocol specifics.  If I were OpenCoin, I would obviously design it with the potential to kill Bitcoin if possible.  Right now we are just going by the assurances of its employees that it's not or "unlikely" going to replace bitcoin even though there is potential.

The specifics are available on the Ripple wiki. If you understand the internal design and mechanics of BitCoin you will see that the design and mechanics of Ripple are superior in every way. It is like BitCoin (the code base) 2.0. It would be trivial to make BitCoin (the coin) better, faster, cheaper by converting the existing BitCoin block chain into a new Ripple (the code base) ledger.

That is the obvious next step for BitCoin once the Ripple code base is released. Most everything important on the BitCoin Hard Fork Wishlist is already done in the Ripple code base. Doing so would have one really interesting side effect.

Ripple (the code base) has zero use for the "mining" part of current BitCoin miner's expensive rigs. It would be trivial to mod the Ripple code base to distribute 25 BTC among those who helped validate transactions in a given 10 minute period. However, the validation chore can be done with the power of a cell phone. (maybe a little exaggeration, but certainly with the old laptop you recently upgraded)

Goodbye, GPU cards, FPGAs, and ASICs. But really... Would that be a bad thing?

I guess my point is that once the code base is released we'll see whether or not OpenCoin has any hooks in there to manipulate the system.  Their employees state that once the cat is out of the bag you can't put her back in, which I take as, "trust me once it's open it will be obvious we can't manipulate it."

Also, I'm interested in seeing a concise answer to this question: how does OpenCoin plan on proving their inability to manipulate the ripple network while being able to retain corporate control over the payment system?  Conversely, how does OpenCoin prevent Bitcoin from copying all of its features?  RED do you already have thoughts on this question with your research?  I almost feel like there is a contradiction there.

[Red]

I was thinking just of the use of Coin-burning as a tool for transition between cryptocurrencies,

That's really f***ing clever! At least to my sleepy brain.

[JoelKatz]

Also, I'm interested in seeing a concise answer to this question: how does OpenCoin plan on proving their inability to manipulate the ripple network while being able to retain control over the payment system?

We have no desire to retain control, that's the whole point of decentralizing. It is vital that we not have control over the network for all kinds of reasons. That's why we designed the system not to require central authorities.

Conversely, how does OpenCoin prevent Bitcoin from copying all of its features?

We don't. We've even suggested some things we do that could be particularly helpful to Bitcoin. We don't see ourselves competing with Bitcoin any time in the near future, if ever.

Do you think if Satoshi had kept control over Bitcoin or tried to stop alt coins from forming his Bitcoins would be worth more today? We learned this lesson.

[mmeijeri]

@JoelKatz:

Have you guys considered a proof-of-burn transition from BTC to XRP?

[JoelKatz]

Have you guys considered a proof-of-burn transition from BTC to XRP?

Why advantage would that have over just trading BTC for XRP? If it ever cranked into high gear, it would reduce the supply of BTC and increase the supply of XRP, making both currencies less useful and means of exchange.

[mmeijeri]

Why advantage would that have over just trading BTC for XRP?

Maybe it would help acceptance by those holding BTC, plus it could help you supplant BTC if that's what you wanted. In general, I think that offering an upgrade path from other currencies could be a good business move for new cryptocurrencies, at least in some circumstances. But I'm not advocating this, just wondering if you had considered it.

[JoelKatz]

Why advantage would that have over just trading BTC for XRP?

Maybe it would help acceptance by those holding BTC, plus it could help you supplant BTC if that's what you wanted. In general, I think that offering an upgrade path from other currencies could be a good business move for new cryptocurrencies, at least in some circumstances. But I'm not arguing in favour of this, just wondering if you had considered it.

I know a lot of people in this forum want lots of currency speculators to drive up the price of BTC. But that's, IMO, foolish short term thinking. That's what causes crashes. And crashes cause risk. And risk drives away adoption of a currency as a means of exchange.

Long term, the real win is getting your currency used as a means of exchange. Price instability works against that. Such a scheme, if it moved at any kind of volume, would reduce the supply of one currency and increase the other, making both prices less stable and making both currencies less suitable as a means of exchange. It would only make sense if both currencies functioned as a unit already, like when a currency is reissued, because everyone already understands that all existing old currency adds to the supply of new currency because people will exchange it.

[bitchess]

Conversely, how does OpenCoin prevent Bitcoin from copying all of its features?

We don't. We've even suggested some things we do that could be particularly helpful to Bitcoin. We don't see ourselves competing with Bitcoin any time in the near future, if ever.

2 q's:
1) If Bitcoin copies you completely, you will go bankrupt.  Is this not true?  I would expect OpenCoin to try to protect themselves somehow by inserting some hook into the system to protect their intellectual property.

2) Why don't you just take the issue off the table entirely then by removing ripple altogether?

[JoelKatz]

1) If Bitcoin copies you completely, you will go bankrupt.  Is this not true?

I don't think that really makes sense. Bitcoin is what it is. There's really no way Bitcoin could copy us without being something other than Bitcoin and people would still want the old Bitcoin.

I would expect OpenCoin to try to protect themselves somehow by inserting some hook into the system to protect their intellectual property.

Like Satoshi did for Bitcoin, right? No, wait, he didn't. You think he would have been richer if he had? Was Satoshi a fool?

2) Why don't you just take the issue off the table entirely then by removing ripple altogether?

Trying to adjust your behavior to overcome irrational objections from people who don't even care about the issues they're objecting to and who will just make new equally invalid objections when you overcome the ones they did made is a fool's errand. Ripple has a significant chance of complete failure and being able to give away XRP to drive adoption is strategically critical. And that's only one of a long list of reasons.

If you don't believe us, even when we say we're going to do what's in our own best interest, then so be it. Wait and see.

[mmeijeri]

I know a lot of people in this forum want lots of currency speculators to drive up the price of BTC. But that's, IMO, foolish short term thinking. That's what causes crashes. And crashes cause risk. And risk drives away adoption of a currency as a means of exchange.

Agreed wholeheartedly, what Bitcoin needs now is stability, not a higher exchange rate.

Long term, the real win is getting your currency used as a means of exchange. Price instability works against that. Such a scheme, if it moved at any kind of volume, would reduce the supply of one currency and increase the other, making both prices less stable and making both currencies less suitable as a means of exchange. It would only make sense if both currencies functioned as a unit already, like when a currency is reissued, because everyone already understands that all existing old currency adds to the supply of new currency because people will exchange it.

That need not be the only effect. It could also make transition from BTC to XRP less painful, which could decrease enthusiasm for a Bitcoin-based rival to Ripple. The end result could then be a single, more stable currency, namely XRP.

[bitchess]

Why advantage would that have over just trading BTC for XRP?

Maybe it would help acceptance by those holding BTC, plus it could help you supplant BTC if that's what you wanted. In general, I think that offering an upgrade path from other currencies could be a good business move for new cryptocurrencies, at least in some circumstances. But I'm not arguing in favour of this, just wondering if you had considered it.

I know a lot of people in this forum want lots of currency speculators to drive up the price of BTC. But that's, IMO, foolish short term thinking. That's what causes crashes. And crashes cause risk. And risk drives away adoption of a currency as a means of exchange.

Long term, the real win is getting your currency used as a means of exchange. Price instability works against that. Such a scheme, if it moved at any kind of volume, would reduce the supply of one currency and increase the other, making both prices less stable and making both currencies less suitable as a means of exchange. It would only make sense if both currencies functioned as a unit already, like when a currency is reissued, because everyone already understands that all existing old currency adds to the supply of new currency because people will exchange it.

I don't care about BTC valuation, most of my wealth is in equities.  I do care about virtual currencies "making it" because it is revolutionary which I know you agree with.  When you have more than one cryptocurrency this undermines the probability of success for the market leader.

ripple has a huge disadvantage because of its public association with OpenCoin, a for-profit organization, which you are a part of.

I will even concede that Bitcoin probably started out as a for-profit scheme, but I don't care because it has the vast market share right now which is why I will only use Bitcoin for now.

Having a controlled exchange mechanism (via proof of burn) from BTC to ripple is advantageous because it allows organized and controlled transition of currency 1 to currency 2.  Doing this via trading is undesirable because it does not address the volatility issue caused by the competition for alternate cryptocurrencies.

When you standardize the conversion from X to Y in a controlled decentralized environment this addresses the volatility issue inherent to ALL cryptocurrencies which need to always be on the watch for its future replacement.

Concisely, if people sell BTC to buy ripple, BTC goes to 0 and ripple goes up.  This creates inherent instability in BTC valuation.

[JoelKatz]

That need not be the only effect. It could also make transition from BTC to XRP less painful, which could decrease enthusiasm for a Bitcoin-based rival to Ripple. The end result could then be a single, more stable currency, namely XRP.

You're definitely right that this is conceivable. I'm not so sure it's likely though. If anything like this ever happened, it would be way off in the future. We we designed Ripple, our primary goal was to make a system that was as useful as possible so that it had the best possible chance of widespread adoption. Thinking through a solution to some possible distant future Bitcoin/Ripple endgame was not part of the equation. And I don't think any of us can imagine what such a scenario will look like such that we could design for it now.

Concisely, if people sell BTC to buy ripple, BTC goes to 0 and ripple goes up.  This creates inherent instability in BTC valuation.

If you believe Ripple will inevitably destroy Bitcoin because it's so much better, then I would argue that it should do so and it's irrational to oppose it because Bitcoin somehow "deserves to win" despite being inferior.

I don't think anyone can predict what some Bitcoin/Ripple future endgame would look like or even if there will ever be one. If you genuinely think this is likely, sell all your BTC today and buy XRP. (I bet you didn't. Why? Because you don't think it's likely. I don't either.)