Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin

[mmeijeri]

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

Invitations have nothing to do with trust lines for IOUs. I didn't even know you needed an invitation now, I think that if you find the correct link you can still create an account without an invitation. You do need someone who will send you your initial 76 ripples (or is it 51 now) to get you started.

[1714031026]

1714031026

[1714031026]

1714031026

[1714031026]

1714031026

[cypherdoc]

i want you to explain it since you claimed it.

What claim exactly do you want me to substantiate?

why you think there is a consensus mechanism that actually carries weight in a decision making process moreso than just being able to view balances and transactions on a gateways ledger (which i think is a long shot feature especially if we're talking about banks).

[mmeijeri]

why you think there is a consensus mechanism that actually carries weight in a decision making process moreso than just being able to view balances and transactions on a gateways ledger (which i think is a long shot feature especially if we're talking about banks).

I don't understand the question. The consensus algorithm is Ripple's solution to the problem of achieving a consensus on a distributed but shared ledger maintained by a p2p network, just as the block chain is Bitcoin's solution. If you want details of the algorithm, see the Ripple website. If you want a thorough analysis of the algorithm, you're going to have to wait. If you want to be skeptical until that time, fine. Nevertheless, you have no basis to believe a block chain is more reliable.

[cypherdoc]

Instead of acting as if Joel owes you an explanation, maybe you could first read the documentation that has already been provided, so that you might ask more intelligent and more informed questions.

i have tried but don't understand it.  since you're so smart why don't you educate us on consensus?

[cypherdoc]

Nevertheless, you have no basis to believe a block chain is more reliable.

this is just wrong.  i have a 4.5 year history, a $1.3 billion market cap, and not one blockchain hack behind my assertions.

[anti-scam]

Sheesh, the anti-Ripple crusaders come out of the woodwork more quickly than I can add them to my ignore list.

Maybe that should say something to you about Ripple? I find it funny how some people act like others expressing their opinion about Ripple is some giant conspiracy against poor little OpenCoin with its investors and trademarks.

[mmeijeri]

this is just wrong.  i have a 4.5 year history, a $1.3 billion market cap, and not one blockchain hack behind my assertions.

That is no reason to believe Bitcoin's algorithm is more reliable, just more reason to believe it is reliable. Not at all the same thing.

[cypherdoc]

this is just wrong.  i have a 4.5 year history, a $1.3 billion market cap, and not one blockchain hack behind my assertions.

That is no reason to believe Bitcoin's algorithm is more reliable, just more reason to believe it is reliable. Not at all the same thing.

true, but since you're the one's advocating a new kid on the block, the burden of proof is on you to educate the skeptics as to your claims about equal reliability.

[mmeijeri]

true, but since you're the one's advocating a new kid on the block, the burden of proof is on you to educate the skeptics as to your claims about equal reliability.

I made no claim to equal reliability, I merely said we cannot know yet which of the two is more reliable, which is not the same thing either.

[cypherdoc]

Instead of acting as if Joel owes you an explanation, maybe you could first read the documentation that has already been provided, so that you might ask more intelligent and more informed questions.

Shadow of Harbinger has already pointed out several inconsistencies in the wiki.  how can you expect anyone to get real, useful information out of there?

which is why i'm asking you.

[JoelKatz]

why you think there is a consensus mechanism that actually carries weight in a decision making process moreso than just being able to view balances and transactions on a gateways ledger (which i think is a long shot feature especially if we're talking about banks).

Each validator signs the consensus ledger each time a new one is created. So you have a set of cryptographic signatures for each ledger produced by a large number of independently-operated validators, none of which gets to choose the rules by which new ledgers are created from prior ledgers. Further, the ledgers contain hash chains which lead to prior ledgers and signed transactions that justify the changes between them. Also important -- the gateways don't get to choose the rules by which transactions are executed, nor can they make exceptions to them.

[anti-scam]

Each validator signs the consensus ledger each time a new one is created. So you have a set of cryptographic signatures for each ledger produced by a large number of independently-operated validators, none of which gets to choose the rules by which new ledgers are created from prior ledgers. Further, the ledgers contain hash chains which lead to prior ledgers and signed transactions that justify the changes between them. Also important -- the gateways don't get to choose the rules by which transactions are executed, nor can they make exceptions to them.

How will this ledger chain grow in comparison to the Bitcoin blockchain? What can be pruned from it? Who has to store this chain?

[mmeijeri]

Each validator signs the consensus ledger each time a new one is created. So you have a set of cryptographic signatures for each ledger produced by a large number of independently-operated validators, none of which gets to choose the rules by which new ledgers are created from prior ledgers. Further, the ledgers contain hash chains which lead to prior ledgers and signed transactions that justify the changes between them. Also important -- the gateways don't get to choose the rules by which transactions are executed, nor can they make exceptions to them.

Is there an analysis available online which talks about the Ripple equivalent of a blockchain fork?

[cypherdoc]

why you think there is a consensus mechanism that actually carries weight in a decision making process moreso than just being able to view balances and transactions on a gateways ledger (which i think is a long shot feature especially if we're talking about banks).

Each validator signs the consensus ledger each time a new one is created. So you have a set of cryptographic signatures for each ledger produced by a large number of independently-operated validators, none of which gets to choose the rules by which new ledgers are created from prior ledgers. Further, the ledgers contain hash chains which lead to prior ledgers and signed transactions that justify the changes between them. Also important -- the gateways don't get to choose the rules by which transactions are executed, nor can they make exceptions to them.

1. what is to prevent collusion btwn several bank gateways to falsify a ledger?
2. why is this any different than the other iterations of digital cash that chained tx's and relied on digital signatures but failed due to centralization?
3. how often does the ledger have to be signed?  after every tx, at the end of the day, or at the end of a month?
4. with proof of work, any independent node all the way down to the individual, knows to pick the longest chain in case of a conflict in the blockchain ledger since it represents the most amount of work (Byzantine General's problem).   how does Ripple resolve conflicts btwn ledgers?
5. how can gateways ever hope to be as secure than true p2p (down to the individual) like Bitcoin?

[JoelKatz]

How will this ledger chain grow in comparison to the Bitcoin blockchain? What can be pruned from it? Who has to store this chain?

Previous transactions can be thrown away. Previous ledgers can be thrown away.

It's nice for people to store history because it makes it easier for clients and servers to get it and we expect there will be a number of servers who will keep full history for the foreseeable future and recorded past. If that becomes burdensome, we have plans for a distributed storage scheme where servers store a subset of the history (by hash range), but that's not implemented yet.

Until and unless the design is radically changed for sharding, validators should store the entire current ledger, by which I mean all account balances, trust lines, offers, and so on. That will allow them to process any transaction that manipulates any current balance, offer, and so on without having to retrieve data from other nodes.

To start up and process transactions as a server, you really want the full current ledger. That's currently about 15MB in JSON form but will likely grow over time.

We have current ledger fault in partially implemented. This would allow a server to operate (though not as a validator) before it had the full current ledger. This may be more useful in the future when the ledger is, presumably, larger.

[JoelKatz]

1. what is to prevent collusion btwn several bank gateways to falsify a ledger?

How do you falsify signed transactions? Any change to a ledger must be justified by a signed transaction whose deterministic operation generates the changes between ledgers.

2. why is this any different than the other iterations of digital cash that relied on digital signatures but failed due to centralization?

The design doesn't require any central authorities.

3. how often does the ledger have to be signed?  after every tx, at the end of the day, or at the end of a month?

Every validator signs every new ledger. Typically, new ledgers are produced every 20 seconds.

4. with proof of work, any independent node all the way down to the individual, knows to pick the longest chain in case of a conflict in the blockchain ledger since it represents the most amount of work (Byzantine General's problem). How does Ripple resolve conflicts btwn ledgers?

Every validator signs every ledger. If somehow the overwhelming majority of validators you have chosen to trust are not signing the same ledger, you declare the network broken and do not consider any transactions to be confirmed.

5. how can gateways ever hope to be as secure than true p2p (down to the individual) like Bitcoin?

I think this question is based on the misconception that gateways and validators are the same. Gateways just enter into issue and redemption agreements with people. Validators establish consensus transaction sets and sign ledgers.

[QuestionAuthority]

1. what is to prevent collusion btwn several bank gateways to falsify a ledger?

How do you falsify signed transactions? Any change to a ledger must be justified by a signed transaction whose deterministic operation generates the changes between ledgers.

2. why is this any different than the other iterations of digital cash that relied on digital signatures but failed due to centralization?

The design doesn't require any central authorities.

3. how often does the ledger have to be signed?  after every tx, at the end of the day, or at the end of a month?

Every validator signs every new ledger. Typically, new ledgers are produced every 20 seconds.

4. with proof of work, any independent node all the way down to the individual, knows to pick the longest chain in case of a conflict in the blockchain ledger since it represents the most amount of work (Byzantine General's problem). How does Ripple resolve conflicts btwn ledgers?

Every validator signs every ledger. If somehow the overwhelming majority of validators you have chosen to trust are not signing the same ledger, you declare the network broken and do not consider any transactions to be confirmed.

5. how can gateways ever hope to be as secure than true p2p (down to the individual) like Bitcoin?

I think this question is based on the misconception that gateways and validators are the same. Gateways just enter into issue and redemption agreements with people. Validators establish consensus transaction sets and sign ledgers.

"The design doesn't require any central authorities."

What? Do you not consider banks to be central authorities?

[JoelKatz]

"The design doesn't require any central authorities."

What? Do you not consider banks to be central authorities?

Actually, I don't. But the fact that central authorities can participate is not the same as the network requiring central authorities.

Even gateways are, strictly speaking, not required. A gateway is basically just an ordinary issuer that offers redemption and issue agreements (outside the Ripple network) to the public. This makes it easier to use Ripple as a payment network, but the network works without them.

[QuestionAuthority]

"The design doesn't require any central authorities."

What? Do you not consider banks to be central authorities?

Actually, I don't. But the fact that central authorities can participate is not the same as the network requiring central authorities.

Even gateways are, strictly speaking, not required. A gateway is basically just an ordinary issuer that offers redemption and issue agreements (outside the Ripple network) to the public. This makes it easier to use Ripple as a payment network, but the network works does nothing without them.

FTFY

[arsenische]

"The design doesn't require any central authorities."

What? Do you not consider banks to be central authorities?

Actually, I don't. But the fact that central authorities can participate is not the same as the network requiring central authorities.

Even gateways are, strictly speaking, not required. A gateway is basically just an ordinary issuer that offers redemption and issue agreements (outside the Ripple network) to the public. This makes it easier to use Ripple as a payment network, but the network works does nothing without them.

FTFY

If I understand it correctly, every participant can be a gateway and issue IOUs (though not sure how to do it, perhaps need to use something else in addition to existing javascript client). So it is not that centralized. I can imagine the network, where people exchange IOUs without touching the actual money and without involving any bank transfers.

Update: moreover it can be used to exchange cryptocurrencies, so there is no hard need in banks at all.

Update2: so I think Ripple has great future, but I wouldn't use XRP as store of value, I believe it is overpriced currently, considering how much belongs to OpenCoin and how much will be given away to hundreds of thousands of newcomers that are needed for success of the system.