Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin

[mmeijeri]

"You" refers to whom the "you" in your sentence refers to, the Opencoin. They decide how much XRPs they will allocate to anyone out there at any given time, nobody else knows.

Why is that important? And how would OpenCoin know what happened to the money after they gave it away?

[1715257857]

1715257857

[1715257857]

1715257857

[1715257857]

1715257857

[evoorhees]

Again, it doesn't do this. Ripple doesn't let you exchange between fiat and BTC. It lets you exchange between fiat IOU's and BTC. To actually take possession of the fiat, you're back in the normal banking/payments system.

Sure, but why would that be a problem during the transition from fiat to crypto? The same is true for Mt Gox or any other exchange.

I'm simply saying it is not superior to the current system of Gox and other exchanges. That's my point. At best, it is a cloudy, less transparent way of achieving the same goal and exposing oneself to the same counter party risks and hindring oneself with the same bank regulations. If Ripple actually transferred dollars, then I'd be singing its praises. But, of course, it can't do that, and I dislike that it is marketed as if it can... it seems to be misleading a whole host of people.

[oakpacific]

I am neutral about Ripple and taking a wait-and-see attitude, there are good arguments both pro and con whether the system will actually work as marketed.  As part of my research, I have a question which hopefully someone here can answer:

OpenCoin, Developer of Ripple Protocol, Closes Funding From Andreessen Horowitz, FF Angel IV, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Angel Investors

What is the sustaining business model for OpenCoin on which this investment was predicated?  Or did these firms simply receive a large chunk of XRP with the assumption that the value will appreciate?  Basically I'm trying to understand how investing in OpenCoin was pitched, and what the VC exit strategy is going to be.  These guys would not have handed over money without the expectation of a 10x or 100x rate of return.

Given that OpenCoin doesn't take a cut on transactions, and that once the source code is released and cloneable the technology stops being a scarce resource, is OpenCoin planning to offer additional/ongoing/proprietary paid-for services and products, or is the entire monetization strategy based on widespread network adoption and a rising XRP value?

This is a very good question, and you're absolutely right that the VC investors are being enticed by something like 100x potential return or higher. They are not investing millions for any other reason.

That said, I see only two possible business models:

1) Give a large amount of XRP to the investors. If system takes off, they make huge returns.

2) At some stage, attempt to license gateways, such that Ripple becomes a proprietary system earning money on its IP. I doubt OpenCoin is so foolish as to think this would work. I do not think this is their plan. This leaves only option 1, above.

Notice something important though... the promise to investors must have been more than "you get X% in OpenCoin equity" because the company MUST ASSUME that it will be closed or shut down once Ripple achieves a significant size (the egold problem). In other words, everyon in OpenCoin must know that OpenCoin is temporary, and thus the only promise they could make to the investors is to hand them a bunch of XRP's which would outlast the company.

If the investors really only invested in return for equity in OpenCoin, then they are fools and don't understand the implications of cryptocurrency markets at all.

But when you open source everything, not a line of code or any IP right is your own, competitors can replicate your network easily, including your currency, how is the XRP to worth anything then?

For the same reason that BTC is worth something when anyone can easily clone it. Network effects, user adoption, brand recognition, proven track record, etc.

Nah, if you want to replicate the BTC network, you need to spend hundreds of millions to replicate its hardware infrastructure first, or your network cannot achieve the same degree of reliability and security, a Ripple network costs very little to create and thus very little to replicate, all you need is trust, which is cheap, a botnet operator can just ask his thousands of nodes to be very cooperative and helpful with validating your transactions.

[mmeijeri]

I'm simply saying it is not superior to the current system of Gox and other exchanges. That's my point. At best, it is a cloudy, less transparent way of achieving the same goal and exposing oneself to the same counter party risks and hindring oneself with the same bank regulations.

For one, it is (or will be) distributed, unlike Mt Gox. But don't you think that person-to-person rippling will allow a black market for exchanging between fiat and crypto to persist even in the face of draconian government repression?

[oakpacific]

"You" refers to whom the "you" in your sentence refers to, the Opencoin. They decide how much XRPs they will allocate to anyone out there at any given time, nobody else knows.

Why is that important? And how would OpenCoin know what happened to the money after they gave it away?

They could carefully ration it so that their fiats/BTC reserve is enough to push up the price, even if everyone other than them decides to sell out. Again I am not stating it as a fact.

[mmeijeri]

Nah, if you want to replicate the BTC network, you need to spend hundreds of millions to replicate its hardware infrastructure first, or your network cannot achieve the same degree of reliability and security, a Ripple network costs very little to create and thus very little to cooperate, all you need is trust, which is cheap, a botnet operator can just ask his thousands of nodes to be very cooperative and helpful with validating your transactions.

That remains to be seen. It's not inconceivable that the consensus process is superior to the block chain. It's also quite possible that it isn't. I don't think anyone here is in a position to know that just yet.

[oakpacific]

Nah, if you want to replicate the BTC network, you need to spend hundreds of millions to replicate its hardware infrastructure first, or your network cannot achieve the same degree of reliability and security, a Ripple network costs very little to create and thus very little to cooperate, all you need is trust, which is cheap, a botnet operator can just ask his thousands of nodes to be very cooperative and helpful with validating your transactions.

That remains to be seen. It's not inconceivable that the consensus process is superior to the block chain. It's also quite possible that it isn't. I don't think anyone here is in a position to know that just yet.

Yes, I think it will come down to a philisophical rather than technical problem. After all Bitcoiners are here using Bitcoin because fundamentally we are pessimistic about human nature, but maybe the great mass are just not as paranoid as us.

[Coinseeker]

I think Erik's point about ripple moving IOUs rather than assets around is an important one.

It's an important difference, but I see IOUs issued by gateways mainly as a temporary tool for the transition to crypto. Once Ripple was widely used, XRP could be used for everything and you wouldn't need IOUs anymore, except perhaps for exchange with other crypto-currencies. I don't think there is a fundamental reason something similar couldn't be done with Bitcoin. In any event, Ripple would give us exactly what Bitcoin needs right now: an efficient, distributed mechanism for exchanging between fiat and BTC.

Bingo!

Again, it doesn't do this. Ripple doesn't let you exchange between fiat and BTC. It lets you exchange between fiat IOU's and BTC. To actually take possession of the fiat, you're back in the normal banking/payments system.

IOU for $1 =/= $1  (the former has non-trivial counterparty risk, the latter is an asset).

Which is totally fine with me as I'm still doing that dealing with Bitcoins, as it relates to pulling out USD.  I still have the option of storing some BTC (assets) and I have the ability to deal with XRP's (IOU's), plus from my understanding I can move in and out of the banking system as I please, while choosing a gateway I trust.  Not to mention, Ripple is better setup to handle the implementation of regulations that are inevitably coming.  I just think Ripple is a wonderful compliment to Bitcoin and as was stated, can afford the necessary developments and upgrades along the way, that Bitcoin developers refuse to or simply can't timely implement.  This allows mass adoption virtually overnight.

My speculation:  Ripple is going to save Bitcoin from itself.  Ripple is that avenue that will allow Bitcoin to reach it's true value potential.  While many stand against Ripple (and there is much to be proven by OpenCoin) I think if all goes as planned, these same people will be thanking Ripple when they look at the new worth of their Bitcoin stashes.  IMO of course.  

[evoorhees]

I'm simply saying it is not superior to the current system of Gox and other exchanges. That's my point. At best, it is a cloudy, less transparent way of achieving the same goal and exposing oneself to the same counter party risks and hindring oneself with the same bank regulations.

For one, it is (or will be) distributed, unlike Mt Gox. But don't you think that person-to-person rippling will allow a black market for exchanging between fiat and crypto to persist even in the face of draconian government repression?

Gateways are no more distributed than Bitcoin exchanges. There are numerous Bitcoin exchanges, and there will be numerous Ripple gateways. Bitcoin exchanges and Ripple gateways both suffer the same vulnerability to government shutdown, as they must hold bank accounts with fiat currencies in them. I am not saying that Ripple is worse that Bitcoin in this regard, I'm simply saying it is not better.

And "person to person rippling" still doesn't move fiat around. The fact remains - if you want to sell some asset (BTC, EUR, Gold, etc) for dollars via Ripple, you still have to figure out how to get the asset to the buyer, and the dollars to yourself. Ripple doesn't move those assets.

Ripple only lets people trade claims to assets, not assets themselves (with the exception of XRPs). And I can trade claims to assets without ripple... I could sell you my car for your pile of $10k in cash. We could do this via email. Of course, then the important question is how to we actually make the exchange, because a promise in computer software does not equal delivery or ownership of the asset. Ripple offers the former while claiming to provide the latter.

[cypherdoc]

And nobody other then you knows how much is out of your control.

What do you mean by that?

"You" refers to whom the "you" in your sentence refers to, the Opencoin. They decide how much XRPs they will allocate to anyone out there at any given time, nobody else knows.

this is exactly how our Federal Reserve plays its game.

preferential dealing.

[cypherdoc]

is the entire monetization strategy based on widespread network adoption and a rising XRP value?

It seems the answer is yes. Jed himself when asked how OpenCoin plans to raise revenue answered "we hold XRP and hope they go up in value."

that's really not good; for Ripple.

[oakpacific]

And nobody other then you knows how much is out of your control.

What do you mean by that?

"You" refers to whom the "you" in your sentence refers to, the Opencoin. They decide how much XRPs they will allocate to anyone out there at any given time, nobody else knows.

this is exactly how our Federal Reserve plays its game.

preferential dealing.

With FED you at least know how much money is out of the printing press, assume they did not lie.

[cypherdoc]

And nobody other then you knows how much is out of your control.

What do you mean by that?

"You" refers to whom the "you" in your sentence refers to, the Opencoin. They decide how much XRPs they will allocate to anyone out there at any given time, nobody else knows.

this is exactly how our Federal Reserve plays its game.

preferential dealing.

With FED you at least know how much money is out of the printing press, assume they did not lie.

Actually that's not true.

How many times have we found out about emergency swap lines extended to troubled actors after the fact. And why won't they submit to an audit?

[Coinseeker]

Oh boy, here comes the libertarian, ideological discussion.  It was a nice thread.   

[mmeijeri]

And "person to person rippling" still doesn't move fiat around. The fact remains - if you want to sell some asset (BTC, EUR, Gold, etc) for dollars via Ripple, you still have to figure out how to get the asset to the buyer, and the dollars to yourself. Ripple doesn't move those assets.

True, but it does do netting and you can periodically settle with your immediate neighbours in cash, or whatever mechanism you prefer. Cash or payment in kind would likely be the preferred method in the face of government repression.

Ripple only lets people trade claims to assets, not assets themselves (with the exception of XRPs). And I can trade claims to assets without ripple... I could sell you my car for your pile of $10k in cash. We could do this via email. Of course, then the important question is how to we actually make the exchange, because a promise in computer software does not equal delivery or ownership of the asset. Ripple offers the former while claiming to provide the latter.

But you cannot net car sales and settle with your neighbours. With money, I don't care about the individual bills, I just want an equivalent amount of money.

[Shawshank]

Once Ripple is given the legal approval, what would stop Google to create its own Ripple?

What would stop commercial banks to create their own modified version of Ripple? I suppose it would be a natural move. All European banks as gateways of the new network. The European Central Bank would issue real euros, not IOUs...

[nameface]

I know TradeFortress a bit from experiences on the forums and he seems to me to be a smart and agreeable guy. I'm shocked by his actions. But could posting a silly blurb allover the place really hurt Ripple? It would just result in more publicity, which would probably end up being good for Ripple. I think the vision for Ripplescam.org could be an attempt at eventually making money by piggybacking off of Ripple's success, rather than a true attack on Ripple. Nothing about it is convincing to me.

[Welsh]

Ripple doesn't persuade me one bit, it's certainly against bitcoin, but hey!
It's nice to have some competition, may the better currency win *cough* bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

I know TradeFortress a bit from experiences on the forums and he seems to me to be a smart and agreeable guy. I'm shocked by his actions. But could posting a silly blurb allover the place really hurt Ripple? It would just result in more publicity, which would probably end up being good for Ripple. I think the vision for Ripplescam.org could be an attempt at eventually making money by piggybacking off of Ripple's success, rather than a true attack on Ripple. Nothing about it is convincing to me.

I see it completely the opposite.

Ripple is trying to piggyback off Bitcoin's success.

That's why we see them all over this forum.

[cypherdoc]

Once Ripple is given the legal approval, what would stop Google to create its own Ripple?

What would stop commercial banks to create their own modified version of Ripple? I suppose it would be a natural move. All European banks as gateways of the new network. The European Central Bank would issue real euros, not IOUs...

Correct.

This is why Bitcoin has proof of work.