Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin

[SGExodus]

It is hard to argue for or against Ripple because the information about the system is so scarce.

Ripple official website, and the Wiki were badly written, perhaps by some pre-school kids, and have failed miserably to articulate the value of the system.  I have to wonder how all the proponents in this forum derives the additional insights.   Perhaps, they can volunteer their service and help Ripple to update their website/wiki.

Looking at all the 4 possible P2P payment scenarios:

Scenario 1 -  End-to-End crypto currency payment.   

A (send cryptomoney) --> crypto network --> B (receive cryptomoney) 

Scenario 2 -  Crypto to Fiat: 

A (send cryptomoney) -->  crypto network -->  Crypto2Fiat Gateway (such as BitPay) -->  Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

or

A (send cryptomoney) --->  crypto network  --> B (receive cryptomoney) --> crypto network --> Crypto2Fiat Gateway (such as BitPay) --> Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

Scenario 3 - Fiat to Fiat

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Gateway (such as Paypal or Dwolla) --> Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

or

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Direct Wire Transfer --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

Scenario 4 - Fiat to Crypto

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Gateway (MTGOX) --> B (receive cryptomoney)

Kindly explain, how would adding Ripple into the transaction flow any of this scenarios help to make P2P payment transactions "faster, easier, or cheaper" [as was described as part of Ripple's benefits]

[JoelKatz]

So OP's title actually makes sense, right?

I don't think so. Ripple takes an awful lot from Bitcoin. Transactions are cryptographically signed. Double spends can be resolved without any central authority. The Ripple client is open source and the server will be. There will be no authority whose permission you need to open an account or access the network. All transaction and state data is public. And so on.

The key difference is that Bitcoin is a currency and a payment network for only that currency. Ripple is a payment network for arbitrary currencies, though that gives it some disadvantages too.

[JoelKatz]

It is hard to argue for or against Ripple because the information about the system is so scarce.

Ripple official website, and the Wiki were badly written, perhaps by some pre-school kids, and have failed miserably to articulate the value of the system.  I have to wonder how all the proponents in this forum derives the additional insights.   Perhaps, they can volunteer their service and help Ripple to update their website/wiki.

Looking at all the 4 possible P2P payment scenarios:

Scenario 1 -  End-to-End crypto currency payment.  

A (send cryptomoney) --> crypto network --> B (receive cryptomoney)  

Scenario 2 -  Crypto to Fiat:  

A (send cryptomoney) -->  crypto network -->  Crypto2Fiat Gateway (such as BitPay) -->  Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

or

A (send cryptomoney) --->  crypto network  --> B (receive cryptomoney) --> crypto network --> Crypto2Fiat Gateway (such as BitPay) --> Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

Scenario 3 - Fiat to Fiat

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Gateway (such as Paypal or Dwolla) --> Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

or

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Direct Wire Transfer --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

Scenario 4 - Fiat to Crypto

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Gateway (MTGOX) --> B (receive cryptomoney)

Kindly explain, how would adding Ripple into the transaction flow any of this scenarios help to make P2P payment transactions "faster, easier, or cheaper" [as was described as part of Ripple's benefits]

If you have any currency, crypto or fiat, with reasonable liquidity either in the Ripple system or in any system the federates with Ripple, you can make a payment in any destination currency (that has reasonable liquidity) to any other Ripple user or user of any system that federates with Ripple, in a single step with a single Ripple transaction. So if you have US dollars on PayPal, and PayPal federates with Ripple, and you want to pay Bitcoins to a user of Dwolla, and Dwolla federates with Ripple, you can do that with a single transaction and it "just works".

The point is that you don't have scenarios any more. It's just like email. In the early 90's, we had "AOL user emails CompuServe user" as a scenario. I can see you arguing against Internet email saying "Now, Compuserve just sends the email directly to the final recipient. With SMTP, CompuServe has to hand the email to an SMTP server, and AOL has to run an SMTP server, and each end needs a gateway, and it's *so* complicated". But of course, email that isn't federated is unthinkable today, and all these "extra steps" are totally invisible to users. They just enter an email address and the email gets there. Federation through Internet email made the idea of different scenarios completely irrelevant. That's what Ripple can do for payments.

All these different scenarios show exactly the problem Ripple is trying to solve. In each scenario, take the point closest to the source that supports Ripple and the point closest to the destination that supports Ripple and replace everything between them with a single Ripple transaction that has a transaction fee of a fraction of a cent and can draw off liquidity (and competitive rates) provided by anyone else who uses Ripple and that completes in seconds.

[Rampion]

It is hard to argue for or against Ripple because the information about the system is so scarce.

Ripple official website, and the Wiki were badly written, perhaps by some pre-school kids, and have failed miserably to articulate the value of the system.  I have to wonder how all the proponents in this forum derives the additional insights.   Perhaps, they can volunteer their service and help Ripple to update their website/wiki.

Looking at all the 4 possible P2P payment scenarios:

Scenario 1 -  End-to-End crypto currency payment.  

A (send cryptomoney) --> crypto network --> B (receive cryptomoney)  

Scenario 2 -  Crypto to Fiat:  

A (send cryptomoney) -->  crypto network -->  Crypto2Fiat Gateway (such as BitPay) -->  Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

or

A (send cryptomoney) --->  crypto network  --> B (receive cryptomoney) --> crypto network --> Crypto2Fiat Gateway (such as BitPay) --> Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

Scenario 3 - Fiat to Fiat

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Gateway (such as Paypal or Dwolla) --> Gateway's Bank --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

or

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Direct Wire Transfer --> B's Bank --> B (receive money)

Scenario 4 - Fiat to Crypto

A (send money) --> A's Bank --> Gateway (MTGOX) --> B (receive cryptomoney)

Kindly explain, how would adding Ripple into the transaction flow any of this scenarios help to make P2P payment transactions "faster, easier, or cheaper" [as was described as part of Ripple's benefits]

If you have any currency, crypto or fiat, with reasonable liquidity either in the Ripple system or in any system the federates with Ripple, you can make a payment in any destination currency (that has reasonable liquidity) to any other Ripple user or user of any system that federates with Ripple, in a single step with a single Ripple transaction. So if you have US dollars on PayPal, and PayPal federates with Ripple, and you want to pay Bitcoins to a user of Dwolla, and Dwolla federates with Ripple, you can do that with a single transaction and it "just works".

The point is that you don't have scenarios any more. It's just like email. In the early 90's, we had "AOL user emails CompuServe user" as a scenario. I can see you arguing against Internet email saying "Now, Compuserve just sends the email directly to the final recipient. With SMTP, CompuServe has to hand the email to an SMTP server, and AOL has to run an SMTP server, and each end needs a gateway, and it's *so* complicated". But of course, email that isn't federated is unthinkable today, and all these "extra steps" are totally invisible to users. They just enter an email address and the email gets there. Federation through Internet email made the idea of different scenarios completely irrelevant. That's what Ripple can do for payments.

All these different scenarios show exactly the problem Ripple is trying to solve.

The point is Ripple does not transfer actual money (which is an asset) but IOUs, hence debt - a liability and not an asset.

This fatal flaw opens the gates for many negative incentives that will undoubtedly be exploited.

[JoelKatz]

The point is Ripple does not transfer actual money (which is an asset) but IOUs, hence debt - a liability and not an asset.

There is no meaningful difference between a backed IOU and "actual money". In fact, most actual money is backed IOUs. If you have, say, $25,000 in the bank, you have a backed IOU. When you mail someone a check, you transfer an IOU. When you pay for something with a credit card, you transfer an IOU to the credit card company who transfers one to the merchant. When I send you $50 on PayPal or Dwolla, $50 that PayPal or Dwolla owed me becomes $50 that PayPal or Dwolla owes you. When you send money using Western Union, dollar bills don't get sent, an IOU does.

The secret to understanding Ripple is realizing that making payments or exchanging currencies is just a matter of making precisely the right change in who owes how much to whom.

[Rampion]

The point is Ripple does not transfer actual money (which is an asset) but IOUs, hence debt - a liability and not an asset.

There is no meaningful difference between a backed IOU and "actual money". In fact, most actual money is backed IOUs. If you have, say, $25,000 in the bank, you have a backed IOU.

The problem resides on the fact that IOUs can be backed by thin air. You need to trust third parties, and this is the very core problem Bitcoin  was designed to address.

We all know how we ended up in this huge financial crisis. Spirals of debt backed up by nothing. Ripple reproduces this fatally flawed system in a p2p fashion.

Anyhow i appreciate the time you take to answer to our comments.

[JoelKatz]

The problem resides on the fact that IOUs can be backed by thin air. You need to trust third parties, and this is the very core problem Bitcoin  was designed to address.

IOUs *can* be backed by thin air, but they don't have to be. Surely you're not suggesting that systems like Ripple and Bitcoin should protect people from making bad decisions.

We all know how we ended up in this huge financial crisis. Spirals of debt backed up by nothing. Ripple reproduces this fatally flawed system in a p2p fashion.

"People can use Ripple to do bad things therefore Ripple is bad." I utterly reject this argument. The correct question is, "Can people use Ripple to do good things?"

Imagine if hammers were new. We'd hear arguments like, "Hammers are bad because you can hit someone in the head with them. When hammers go on sale, everyone using them will have sore thumbs and be beating people on the head". When something is new, it's hard to recognize these arguments for what they are, but this *is* what they are.

Does Ripple require you to accept IOUs backed by thin air? No. Does Ripple prevent you from telling the difference? No. Does Ripple let you choose precisely which IOUs you accept? Yes. Will people occasionally make mistakes and get hurt by them? Probably. But the same is true of pretty much everything.

If you think about my federation example and imagine PayPal and Dwolla both federate through Ripple, it will be PayPal and Dwolla that will be managing the issuers. To the users of both payment systems, it will be just like they were paying another user on that same payment system.

[redwraith]

The problem resides on the fact that IOUs can be backed by thin air. You need to trust third parties, and this is the very core problem Bitcoin  was designed to address.

IOUs *can* be backed by thin air, but they don't have to be. Surely you're not suggesting that systems like Ripple and Bitcoin should protect people from making bad decisions.

We all know how we ended up in this huge financial crisis. Spirals of debt backed up by nothing. Ripple reproduces this fatally flawed system in a p2p fashion.

"People can use Ripple to do bad things therefore Ripple is bad." I utterly reject this argument. The correct question is, "Can people use Ripple to do good things?"

Imagine if hammers were new. We'd hear arguments like, "Hammers are bad because you can hit someone in the head with them. When hammers go on sale, everyone using them will have sore thumbs and be beating people on the head". When something is new, it's hard to recognize these arguments for what they are, but this *is* what they are.

Does Ripple require you to accept IOUs backed by thin air? No. Does Ripple prevent you from telling the difference? No. Does Ripple let you choose precisely which IOUs you accept? Yes. Will people occasionally make mistakes and get hurt by them? Probably. But the same is true of pretty much everything.

If you think about my federation example and imagine PayPal and Dwolla both federate through Ripple, it will be PayPal and Dwolla that will be managing the issuers. To the users of both payment systems, it will be just like they were paying another user on that same payment system.

Damn, you are the single reason that I KNOW ripple is not a scam.  The quality and logic of your posts is just too much for the likes of ripplescam.org and their ilk. 

[JoelKatz]

Damn, you are the single reason that I KNOW ripple is not a scam.  The quality and logic of your posts is just too much for the likes of ripplescam.org and their ilk.

Thanks. The funny thing is, two years ago I was defending Bitcoin against these exact same types of arguments -- "Bitcoin is bad because people can use it to buy drugs." "Bitcoin is a scam because the early adopters mined a whole bunch before it was open to the public." "Bitcoin is bad because a fixed number of Bitcoin will exist and nobody has any say over the rate at which they're produced." And so on.

[redwraith]

If you want to repeat the same points I've already addressed, please don't style them as a question to me, as if I haven't already answered them several times. You already know my answers. If you're so big on honesty, honestly say that you disagree with my positions, rather than asking me to repeat them yet again as if I've never responded to these points.

I've reviewed the post history of anti-scam and have concluded that this person is either unwilling or unable to participate in any sort of rational discourse. I put them on ignore. It seems they created the account just to bad-mouth Ripple.

antiscam is probably being paid by TradeFortress and the vehemence with which both oppose ripple makes me think that one or both of them is the originator of ripplescam.org.

I thought TradeFortress was known to be the originator of ripplescam.org?
At least that's what I thought when I saw his old sig pop-up with "Ripple is a scam!" in a huge font linking to that site hahaha

Uh, no, anyone who subscribes to the ideals that ripplescam.org endorses is encouraged to use that sig.  I've seen three or four of them.  It doesn't necessarily mean he's the owner.

[melvster]

Ripple is not a scam, but my contentions with Ripple are the following:
<snip>
Ultimately, competition in cryptocurrency land is good. I have great respect for the OpenCoin developers, and Ripple is certainly not a scam, but I remain unconvinced of the system's ultimate merit.

All of your criticisms are factually accurate, and I agree that these are the strongest negatives that Ripple has. I think the positives outweigh the negatives and that there are ways to mitigate all of these issues. But these are definitely fair points as Ripple currently stands. For many of them, my response would be -- wait and see.

At last some rational discussion.

Im a fan of the ripple protocol and OpenCoin's implementation so far has exceeded expectations.  Ripple and bitcoin and OT solve different problems.

The strongest criticism of XRP is that it's 'solution' to double spend is largely untested.  

I see two issues which are somewhat related.  

There is little or no incentive to run rippled and very much a disincentive given that the ledger size will grow in a non linear fashion.  It stands to reason that those that run rippled will be the incentivized by holding large numbers of XRP.  It's unclear that this will prevent the formation of a cartel that can be influenced to favour those that already are large holders of XRP.  ie Centralization comes in via the back door, and the consequences of this mean it's easier for central authorities to control or regulate etc.

Perhaps the more dangerous problem is that is much easier to black swan ripple and introduce measures that are inconsistent with previous behaviour.  Barings bank was the most trusted name in finance for 100 years until it had it's own black swan.  Ripple's trust model relies on consensus.

I'm pleased that OpenCoin is doing well and they deserve success for bringing ripple to a wider audience imho.  Concerns exist over its incentive model and scalability, some of which could be mitigated with careful management.  We'll know more when we get to see the server code.

[redwraith]

Damn, you are the single reason that I KNOW ripple is not a scam.  The quality and logic of your posts is just too much for the likes of ripplescam.org and their ilk.

Thanks. The funny thing is, two years ago I was defending Bitcoin against these exact same types of arguments -- "Bitcoin is bad because people can use it to buy drugs." "Bitcoin is a scam because the early adopters mined a whole bunch before it was open to the public." "Bitcoin is bad because a fixed number of Bitcoin will exist and nobody has any say over the rate at which they're produced." And so on.

I know.  The main reason I have such a problem with these people is because they're calling it a scam, which is way different than calling it flawed.  Ripple may be flawed (who knows maybe it's not, it's way too early!!!), but that doesn't mean it's a scam.  

[ab8989]

Damn, you are the single reason that I KNOW ripple is not a scam.  The quality and logic of your posts is just too much for the likes of ripplescam.org and their ilk. 

I would have liked to hear more from JoelKatz and perhaps ask him some further question to explain some issues in more depth, but once again supporters of ripple have driven the discussion to gutter by turning it away from substance and to be about the probabilities of it being a scam.

[arsenische]

Ripple doesn't look like scam, too much effort put into it by quite a reputable community members, they have official company registered to do it, and the idea is very promising.

It's great that more people will understand nature of money they use everyday (most of them are in fact IOUs).

So we have potentially decentralized alternative to the current financial system (IOUs and XRPs are alternatives for fiat money, BTCs - alternative for gold).

I don't quite understand how the Ripple protocol works though, how scalable, secure and reliable it is.

I am curious if there is any advantage of Proof-of-work vs Consensus. Is it possible for Bitcoin to adapt "consensus" mechanism from Ripple to allow instant secure payments?

[melvster]

Ripple doesn't look like scam, too much effort put into it by quite a reputable community members, they have official company registered to do it, and the idea is very promising.

It's great that more people will understand nature of money they use everyday (most of them are in fact IOUs).

So we have potentially decentralized alternative to the current financial system (IOUs and XRPs are alternatives for fiat money, BTCs - alternative for gold).

I don't quite understand how the Ripple protocol works though, how scalable, secure and reliable it is.

I am curious if there is any advantage of Proof-of-work vs Consensus. Is it possible for Bitcoin to adapt "consensus" mechanism from Ripple to allow instant secure payments?

Less electricity.  Near instant confirms.

An alt coin that operated with both consensus AND proof of work would be *very* interesting.

[arsenische]

Less electricity.  Near instant confirms.

An alt coin that operated with both consensus AND proof of work would be *very* interesting.

Is there any reason to use both? Is there any advantage in proof-of-work over consensus?

[oakpacific]

I don't really want instant confirmation, rather, I want guaranteed confirmation after a reasonable period of time, and I am sure a lot of people are like me, and for Ripple to achieve that, we need to make a lot of assumptions.

[Ignas24]

I have 5 ripple invitations. If someone want's to be invited in Ripple, just write your e-mail to my PM.

[solex]

I have 5 ripple invitations. If someone want's to be invited in Ripple, just write your e-mail to my PM.

Alright. So somehow 5 random people on the internet are going to be "trusted". How does that remotely work?

[melvster]

Less electricity.  Near instant confirms.

An alt coin that operated with both consensus AND proof of work would be *very* interesting.

Is there any reason to use both? Is there any advantage in proof-of-work over consensus?

Yes, proof of work is much harder to game.  Consensus relies on human nature.  And while founders often have the best intention, over time consensus can be won over.