Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Ripple™ is a trademark of OpenCoin Inc, a private for-profit company. I am breaking their Terms of Service by using the trademark Ripple without permission. Sue me.

Satoshi Nakamoto:

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust thats required to make it
work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of
fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our
money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles
with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them
not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make
micropayments impossible.

With Bitcoin, you hold your own money. You control it.

With Ripple, you don't hold money. You hold debt, IOUs. You hold debt issued by a "gateway", a central authority.

As it is debt, they can print as much as they want, when they want. (Aka debasing).

>> See here, I printed myself 1 trillion bitcoins on ripple.

With Bitcoin, miners are required to use their computational power to earn new Bitcoins and transaction fees.

With Ripple, OpenCoin Inc issued themselves 100 billion ripples. They promised to only keep half (50%) for themselves.


With Bitcoin, nobody can spend your money without your private keys.

With Ripple, as the server source code has not being released and it is still proprietary, OpenCoin Inc can change the rules and spend your money.


Bitcoin is v2.0 of money - where you control it in a democratic process via mining. Core network rules are embedded in open source code.

Ripple is v1.1 of money - building on top of existing central banks, and fiat money. Their current marketing efforts are set to overtake and destroy BTC, with their centralized system.


With Bitcoin, 1 BTC is 1 BTC. They're accepted in every BTC accepting site.

With USD, 1 USD is 1 USD. They're accepted in every USD accepting site.

With Ripple, 1 BTC-Bitstamp is 1 BTC-Bitstamp. You lose them when Bitstamp [gets hacked | by owners | raided by DHS]. And it is a question of when - no site lasts forever.


Learn more: http://ripplescam.org/

[1714002146]

1714002146

[1714002146]

1714002146

[1714002146]

1714002146

[1714002146]

1714002146

[BitcoinBarrel]

Bitcoin is what the people want. I could care less about any of the other Alt currencies. What the heck is a ripple anyway? Bitcoin is going to make a SPLASH!  

[patboy247]

+1 Totally agree

[justusranvier]

Bitcoin is v2.0 of money - where you control it in a democratic process via mining. Core network rules are embedded in open source code.

Ripple is v1.1 of money - building on top of existing central banks, and fiat money.

I agree with this, and I think this still leaves room for Ripple at least as long as Money 1.0 is still around. I'm not sure if it would remain useful in a Money 2.0 world.

[Ichthyo]

On the long run, IMHO the important question will be how Ripple relates itself towards Bitcoin and what stance Ripple takes on monetary regulation. Ripple is indeed way more conventional and compatible with the existing banking and finance system. Thus it can be seen as an interesting precedent.

• will the existing system perceive Ripple as a threat?
• will the existing system tolerate Ripple as-is, or more specifically, what aspects of Ripple will the existing system try to bend and pervert?
• will the existing system tolerate some fuzziness in the practical use of ripple? And especially, will it be tolerated that Ripple is used as a gateway from Fiat to Bitcoin, without insisting on full control over the exit points toward Bitcoin?
• how will Ripple react, when some Ripple concepts or interesting parts of the protocol are replicated within a more free setup? (e.g. as a layer on top of some real cryptocoin)

[cypherdoc]

i think the OP is right.

nor do i think Ripple will interface with the existing banking either.  do u really think they will tolerate a new actor in the space that issues themselves 50% of the trading units and maintains control of the code?

[becoin]

Ripple™ is a trademark of OpenCoin Inc, a private for-profit company. I am breaking their Terms of Service by using the trademark Ripple without permission. Sue me.

Satoshi Nakamoto:

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust thats required to make it
work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of
fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our
money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles
with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them
not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make
micropayments impossible.

With Bitcoin, you hold your own money. You control it.

With Ripple, you don't hold money. You hold debt, IOUs. You hold debt issued by a "gateway", a central authority.


With Bitcoin, miners are required to use their computational power to earn new Bitcoins and transaction fees.

With Ripple, OpenCoin Inc issued themselves 100 billion ripples. They promised to only keep half (50%) for themselves.


With Bitcoin, nobody can spend your money without your private keys.

With Ripple, as the server source code has not being released and it is still proprietary, OpenCoin Inc can change the rules and spend your money.


Bitcoin is v2.0 of money - where you control it in a democratic process via mining. Core network rules are embedded in open source code.

Ripple is v1.1 of money - building on top of existing central banks, and fiat money.

Learn more: http://ripplescam.org/

It is not that simple.

The fact that Satoshi seems to be not aware of is that having just a little trust between business counter parties improves their competitiveness dramatically. Yes, trust can be abused but it can last for a very long time before it is finally abused beyond restoration. While trust exists it can smash every competition coming from a system based on lack of trust. Long term business relations without any trust are very expensive luxury.

The recent challenges that bitcoin has with blockchain size, single block size, and minimum transaction fees are just early indicators how expensive it'll be in the future to maintain and support such a monetary system.

Technically Ripple is a piece of art. Though I'd agree with OP that having a private currency as XRP, that is required to pay for transaction fees, spoils the entire concept.

[oakpacific]

With Ripple, as the server source code has not being released and it is still proprietary, OpenCoin Inc can change the rules and spend your money.

If they don't release the source code of Ripple server, there is no guarantee that the network runs the way they told you, it could just be another centralized e-cash, opencoin can withdraw at anytime and the network will stop to function.

If they do release the source code, then the Ripple framework would be infinitely replicable, anyone can just go and create their own Ripple network and release their own XRP, this could potentially mean that XRP has no value at all because it doesn't require a backup by computational power.

[arsenische]

Ripple has one strong advantage: nearly instant transactions. I wonder if Bitcoin can be improved to use similar consensus mechanism to enable safe 0-confirmations transactions.

[BTCscraper]

With Ripple giving themselves half the currency in circulation, I'd rather keep using Paypal.

[BTC Books]

i think the OP is right.

nor do i think Ripple will interface with the existing banking either.  do u really think they will tolerate a new actor in the space that issues themselves 50% of the trading units and maintains control of the code?

Actually cypherdoc, I do.  The existing banking system understands that kind of manipulation - and they can deal with it given what I am sure would be their own understanding of absorbing the Ripple system, eventually.  I see that as inevitable:  both working with Ripple, and eventually taking it over.  I doubt the founders/owners of Ripple would object terribly to what the banks might offer, down the road they hope to see.

Ripple is brilliant though - let's not underestimate it - in the same way that Steve Jobs was brilliant.

Apple's goal has been to sequester as much of the world's equity behind the wall of their own garden:  music, news, movies - whatever they could grab.

By the same token, I see the real goal of Ripple as putting 100% of the equity of Bitcoin into their own walled garden.  Which they control completely, and without recourse.  It's really quite a strategically brilliant effort, and I have a certain objective admiration for the plan.  But...

I'm not a fan.

[wumpus]

Maybe opentransactions should get the attention that ripple is getting at the moment. At least it's a true open source project, and it seems it can do the same (and more) as Ripple.

It's harder to get into, though, and still has a bit of academic feel to it while Ripple is stealing the show with their PR. Everything has to start somewhere though...

[datz]

Ripple™ is a trademark of OpenCoin Inc, a private for-profit company. I am breaking their Terms of Service by using the trademark Ripple without permission. Sue me.

Satoshi Nakamoto:

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust thats required to make it
work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of
fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our
money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles
with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them
not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make
micropayments impossible.

With Bitcoin, you hold your own money. You control it.

With Ripple, you don't hold money. You hold debt, IOUs. You hold debt issued by a "gateway", a central authority.


With Bitcoin, miners are required to use their computational power to earn new Bitcoins and transaction fees.

With Ripple, OpenCoin Inc issued themselves 100 billion ripples. They promised to only keep half (50%) for themselves.


With Bitcoin, nobody can spend your money without your private keys.

With Ripple, as the server source code has not being released and it is still proprietary, OpenCoin Inc can change the rules and spend your money.


Bitcoin is v2.0 of money - where you control it in a democratic process via mining. Core network rules are embedded in open source code.

Ripple is v1.1 of money - building on top of existing central banks, and fiat money.

Learn more: http://ripplescam.org/

I will address and refute all the points/myths of http://ripplescam.org/

Ripple is in closed beta - the protocol will be open sourced given time. Satoshi did not open source from the beginning.  

Anyone can start a node.

Ledger consensus in the distributed Ripple protocol withstands a 51% attack - try 80% attack. Given time Ripple will decentralize but in a distributed manner. Complete decentralization in the Bitcoin protocol in which every client holds the blockchain and receives blockchain headers means that spam and DDOS-like attacks on the protocol are possible (limited scalability, transactions per second, speed, inefficient storage use).  

XRP is premined for a reason. Bitcoin is fatalally flawed in that mining and verifying the block chain wastes resources. If mining ever became unprofitable it would taper off, leaving an opening for a third party to attempt a 51% takeover, double-spending into exchanges, buying BTC back, repeating the process, and gaining control of BTC at an exponential rate. Even if mining stayed profitable, the resources diverted to it would far exceed the value created by the protocol. (Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form). With Ripple, the value of XRP increases as XRP is used to pay off the debt of other currencies (direct value - value transfer, no inefficiencies). I would rather be part of a protocol consisting of clients I trust that is less vulnerable to the attack of any third party.

The top .01 bitcoiners hold > 50% of BTC. Built in inflation of Bitcoin? OpenCoin does not want inflation - that would devalue the company.

Claiming that "debt is money" is flawed is just like claiming fiat is flawed. It is all trust based. Without a platform to exchange debt the financial system will not work properly. When transferring debt in the Ripple protocol you may only receive debt you explicitly trust. This is the only way things like insurance will work in the Bitcoin economy. Chains of debt will not go many steps farther than universally trusted gateways. If you do not wish to hold debt you need not to - gateway to gateway exchanges or transactions may happen instantly. A stable currency and economy cannot functionally operate without a way to exchange debt and communicate between different gateways and exchanges in order to alleviate bottlenecks and mitigate the affect of DDOS on the overall economy.

[wumpus]

. Satoshi did not open source from the beginning.  

That's also a common myth. The first version of bitcoin (0.1) came with source (it was packaged in the same .zip as the windows .exe).

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

XRP is premined for a reason. Bitcoin is fatalally flawed in that mining and verifying the block chain wastes resources.

 

If mining ever became unprofitable it would taper off, leaving an opening for a third party to attempt a 51% takeover, double-spending into exchanges, buying BTC back, repeating the process, and gaining control of BTC at an exponential rate.

Even if mining stayed profitable, the resources diverted to it would far exceed the value created by the protocol.

You seem rather ignorant of both Bitcoin and economics.


This is the best arguments Ripple got for their lame-ass premine?

[datz]

. Satoshi did not open source from the beginning.  

That's also a common myth. The first version of bitcoin (0.1) came with source (it was packaged in the same .zip as the windows .exe).

Yes, but Satoshi built the protocol before the (0.1) release, before he even released his white paper. The Ripple protocol is not complete and not ready for open source release in this environment - it is in closed beta. Satoshi held his own closed trials before releasing (0.1). 

[datz]

XRP is premined for a reason. Bitcoin is fatalally flawed in that mining and verifying the block chain wastes resources.

 

If mining ever became unprofitable it would taper off, leaving an opening for a third party to attempt a 51% takeover, double-spending into exchanges, buying BTC back, repeating the process, and gaining control of BTC at an exponential rate.

Even if mining stayed profitable, the resources diverted to it would far exceed the value created by the protocol.

You seem rather ignorant of both Bitcoin and economics.


This is the best arguments Ripple got for their lame-ass premine?

How is this ignorant? You better make a valid argument as to why and enlighten us if you want to change opinions. I read all the mail archives and code and am first class in economics top-tier.

[datz]

. Satoshi did not open source from the beginning.  

That's also a common myth. The first version of bitcoin (0.1) came with source (it was packaged in the same .zip as the windows .exe).

Yes, but Satoshi built the protocol before the (0.1) release, before he even released his white paper. The Ripple protocol is not complete and not ready for open source release in this environment - it is in closed beta. Satoshi held his own closed trials before releasing (0.1).  

"I appreciate your questions.  I actually did this kind of backwards.  I had to
write all the code before I could convince myself that I could solve every
problem, then I wrote the paper." -Satoshi

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09980.html

[wumpus]

Yes, but Satoshi built the protocol before the (0.1) release, before he even released his white paper. The Ripple protocol is not complete and not ready for open source release in this environment - it is in closed beta. Satoshi held his own closed trials before releasing (0.1).  

It's certainly likely that he did private trials, probably with some kind of testnet. But not on the public block chain. And certainly not at the scale of Ripple currently with a huge number of users involved.

[paraipan]

Somehow relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146360