Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin

[justusranvier]

Well, actually it is both a payment system and a currency. XRP can be traded much like BTC, with zero counterparty risk. The great advantage over Bitcoin is that XRP is fully integrated with the Ripple fiat payment system and can therefore interface with the fiat world far more easily.

Of course speculators gonna speculate, but I'm not really interested in calling something that's consumable a currency. XRP is just something you need to have in your wallet so that you can use the network.

Once crypto is established, that won't matter anymore, because then fiat currencies may go the way of the dodo, but it will be very useful, perhaps even necessary, to get there. Personally, I'm worried that Bitcoin may be doomed without Ripple or something like it. Of course, something like Ripple could also be built on top of BTC rather than XRP. That would be a good thing, because competition keeps everybody honest.

I don't know if Ripple has a future in a post-fiat currency scenario, but I can see ways it could be used that would help ease the transition.

[1713526496]

1713526496

[mmeijeri]

Of course speculators gonna speculate, but I'm not really interested in calling something that's consumable a currency. XRP is just something you need to have in your wallet so that you can use the network.

I see no reason why BTC would be superior as a currency in the long run. In the short run, I'm holding a small amount of BTC and a tiny amount of XRP.

I don't know if Ripple has a future in a post-fiat currency scenario, but I can see ways it could be used that would help ease the transition.

Ripple the fiat payment system would probably have no use anymore, but you could use it for exchanging between multiple cryptocurrencies as well as for community credit in one or more cryptocurrencies, if that ever takes off. XRP the currency could well remain provided it manages to establish itself as a currency first. But easing the transition and protecting crypto from a statist crackdown are the two main things I'm hoping for.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

With Ripple, 1 BTC-Bitstamp is 1 BTC-Bitstamp. You lose them when Bitstamp [gets hacked | by owners | raided by DHS].

Most important, people should know.

Added this post to OP

[redwraith]

Tradeparanoid:  Yes and the future of bitcoin can be called into question when the blocksize limit is changed.  Tons of people get their bitcoin accounts hacked all the time.  What else can happen?  I don't know, but I'm sure we can speculate like you can.  Speculation is not fact.

Your entire argument against ripple is speculation and whatif's designed to create fear and doubt in the minds of the ones who have just a casual knowledge of it i.e. your little "social experiment". 

Do better.   You sound like a psuedo-messiah whose religion has been threatened by an alternate interpretation.  Please stop sounding so desperate, it's not good for bitcoin.

[jubalix]

what i dont get about ripple is when some one doesn't want to pay up...then what, and they were your trusted gate way...

This is not a problem if the amounts you grant in trust aren't excessive (that is you can afford to lose them) and if you only grant trust to people you trust in the real world. Gateways are just special users that are trusted by many people, like banks. Well, not many people here might trust banks and I would argue they should trust gateways even less.

Within Ripple, whenever you trade anything besides XRP, you have counterpart risk and vice versa. This is because Ripple can only do bookkeeping, and the "official ledgers" for fiat currencies are not stored in the Ripple system. This would be an argument for using XRP. On the other hand, you don't have exchange rate risk if you are trading in fiat.

For fiat payments, Ripple is "just" a distributed system for keeping track of who owes what to whom.

For example, if A trusts B for $10 and B trusts C for $10, then C could pay A through B. C's balance with B would be decreased by $10, meaning that C now owes B $10 more than before, or B owes C $10 less than before. Simultaneously B's balance with A would also be decreased by $10.

Assuming all balances started at zero, A would now be owed $10 by B instead of by C, which is an improvement because he didn't trust C, but does trust B. Similarly, C now owes $10 to B, which is also an improvement, because C can now expect shipment of whatever goods he was promised because A does trust B. B's total balance hasn't changed, because previously he had two zero balances, whereas now he has one for +$10 with C and one for -$10 with A. For B this is not immediately an advantage, because he doesn't gain from the transaction but does have to do work for it. However, in practice you would expect B to be on either end of some transactions too, and then someone would return him the favour.

All three parties will want to settle the open amounts to take care of the credit risk. They could do so immediately, or they could wait a while until more transactions have passed through the network and have partially canceled out. This would mean less work.

I may be wrong, but then if the gate was shuts down, or the ultimate trsuted person in the chain or possibly anyone in the chain that I needed to ge to the gateway I am stuffed.....all over

it seems there would be a point where it would be more profitable for a gateway to shutdown, having lots o btc then trade, so there would be an (increasing?) economic insentive at some point to not not be a trusted gateway....and run away with my BTC. I realise I have he same risk with say gox or btce holding my BTC, but in Ripple is it the case I can have any number of small enties any of which would say, I out thanks for your BTC...!

[jubalix]

ha i love it I asked for some support from ripple the reply


This sounds like a gateway issue?

so they sit there and deny any problems in their system and just blame it all on the gateway

genius

[QuestionAuthority]

what i dont get about ripple is when some one doesn't want to pay up...then what, and they were your trusted gate way...

This is not a problem if the amounts you grant in trust aren't excessive (that is you can afford to lose them) and if you only grant trust to people you trust in the real world. Gateways are just special users that are trusted by many people, like banks. Well, not many people here might trust banks and I would argue they should trust gateways even less.

Within Ripple, whenever you trade anything besides XRP, you have counterpart risk and vice versa. This is because Ripple can only do bookkeeping, and the "official ledgers" for fiat currencies are not stored in the Ripple system. This would be an argument for using XRP. On the other hand, you don't have exchange rate risk if you are trading in fiat.

For fiat payments, Ripple is "just" a distributed system for keeping track of who owes what to whom.

For example, if A trusts B for $10 and B trusts C for $10, then C could pay A through B. C's balance with B would be decreased by $10, meaning that C now owes B $10 more than before, or B owes C $10 less than before. Simultaneously B's balance with A would also be decreased by $10.

Assuming all balances started at zero, A would now be owed $10 by B instead of by C, which is an improvement because he didn't trust C, but does trust B. Similarly, C now owes $10 to B, which is also an improvement, because C can now expect shipment of whatever goods he was promised because A does trust B. B's total balance hasn't changed, because previously he had two zero balances, whereas now he has one for +$10 with C and one for -$10 with A. For B this is not immediately an advantage, because he doesn't gain from the transaction but does have to do work for it. However, in practice you would expect B to be on either end of some transactions too, and then someone would return him the favour.

All three parties will want to settle the open amounts to take care of the credit risk. They could do so immediately, or they could wait a while until more transactions have passed through the network and have partially canceled out. This would mean less work.

I may be wrong, but then if the gate was shuts down, or the ultimate trsuted person in the chain or possibly anyone in the chain that I needed to ge to the gateway I am stuffed.....all over

it seems there would be a point where it would be more profitable for a gateway to shutdown, having lots o btc then trade, so there would be an (increasing?) economic insentive at some point to not not be a trusted gateway....and run away with my BTC. I realise I have he same risk with say gox or btce holding my BTC, but in Ripple is it the case I can have any number of small enties any of which would say, I out thanks for your BTC...!

The greatest thinkers in history couldn't develop a system that effectively eliminates the failings of the human element.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

you don't have exchange rate risk if you are trading in fiat.

Bullshit

As someone who had loan defaults all over the place with the BTCUSD rally, you are subject to the exchange risk with Ripple even if you're dealing with fiat.

Sell someone a BTC for $100 USD? BTC drops to $2 each, good luck collecting on that debt.

You didn't trust that guy directly? Your friend will be pissed because he just lost a hundred bucks.

It's quite clear that a trust free system is way better than a system that requires trust.

[Richy_T]

Primates take note:

So what are you, some kind of lizard man?

[QuestionAuthority]

Primates take note:

So what are you, some kind of lizard man?

That's not PC. They prefer to be called follicle impaired.

[Richy_T]

One possible solution is to only extend trust to people who you know,

If there's one thing I've learned as I've gone through life, it's that you can't trust at least 80% of the people you know. And that includes the ones you think you can.

[solex]

One possible solution is to only extend trust to people who you know,

If there's one thing I've learned as I've gone through life, it's that you can't trust at least 80% of the people you know. And that includes the ones you think you can.

This has been my reservation with trust systems all along. Money destroys friendships and money destroys family relationships. Society seems to work better when individuals have the option to keep their financial affairs separate from their personal life.

[Richy_T]

3. It is arguably unfair.

With Bitcoin I can say that the coins are given out via lottery. This seems fair to people. With XRP I have to say that the creators gave themselves all 100 billion of it and intend on using most of it for profit. They won't accept that.

I have to say that I'm skeptical about Ripple. I've been hearing about it for a while now and thought I should look into it in case I was missing out like I was on Bitcoin for so long. Have to say, I'm not impressed. But I do think everyone needs to get over this "unfair" thing. Life is unfair. Whichever way you slice things up, someone will think it's unfair. People think Bitcoin's early-adopter allocation is unfair. But the thing is, it's irrelevant. It will either succeed or fail on its merits and fair doesn't enter the equation.

[mmeijeri]

I may be wrong, but then if the gate was shuts down, or the ultimate trsuted person in the chain or possibly anyone in the chain that I needed to ge to the gateway I am stuffed.....all over

Note that the example didn't contain a gateway. In a sense a gateway is just a user that is trusted by many people, which results in short paths between many individuals. The more gateways, the more robust the system. But even if there aren't any gateways, you can still ripple from person to person. You are only exposed to credit risk caused by the people you've directly granted trust. If someone on the chain defaults, then the payment should still reach you, though the person after the person that defaulted would probably revoke his trust, so that the same thing couldn't happen again.

it seems there would be a point where it would be more profitable for a gateway to shutdown, having lots o btc then trade, so there would be an (increasing?) economic insentive at some point to not not be a trusted gateway....and run away with my BTC. I realise I have he same risk with say gox or btce holding my BTC, but in Ripple is it the case I can have any number of small enties any of which would say, I out thanks for your BTC...!

Yes, trust means trust. If you don't trust a person not to do this, don't grant them trust or you may be the victim of something like TradeFortress's little stunt. And don't just trust a gateway either: they're likely to be less reliable at keeping your money than banks, which aren't terribly reliable to begin with nowadays.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

3. It is arguably unfair.

With Bitcoin I can say that the coins are given out via lottery. This seems fair to people. With XRP I have to say that the creators gave themselves all 100 billion of it and intend on using most of it for profit. They won't accept that.

I have to say that I'm skeptical about Ripple. I've been hearing about it for a while now and thought I should look into it in case I was missing out like I was on Bitcoin for so long. Have to say, I'm not impressed. But I do think everyone needs to get over this "unfair" thing. Life is unfair. Whichever way you slice things up, someone will think it's unfair. People think Bitcoin's early-adopter allocation is unfair. But the thing is, it's irrelevant. It will either succeed or fail on its merits and fair doesn't enter the equation.

People are free to not use something that is unfair, however, and speak out against it.

[Richy_T]

People are free to not use something that is unfair, however, and speak out against it.

Sure. People can do what they want. I just think the unfair argument is pretty weak. Especially for a voluntary system (unlike when the government decides it will help itself to the profits of your labor for whatever ends it happens to feel like).

[nelisky]

With Ripple, 1 BTC-Bitstamp is 1 BTC-Bitstamp. You lose them when Bitstamp [gets hacked | by owners | raided by DHS].

Most important, people should know.

And again, FUD. Yes, what is said is absolutely true, but put that in context:

With Bitstamp, 1 BTC is 1 BTC-Bitstamp
With MtGox, 1 BTC is 1 BTC-Mtgox
With any online wallet...
With any exchange...
With coins you lend your friend...

This is in no way a ripple thing, even though it is also true with ripple.

[hashman]

But I do think everyone needs to get over this "unfair" thing. Life is unfair. Whichever way you slice things up, someone will think it's unfair. People think Bitcoin's early-adopter allocation is unfair. But the thing is, it's irrelevant. It will either succeed or fail on its merits and fair doesn't enter the equation.

I disagree.  The BTC early-adopter allocation (Read: botnet operator allocation) (and lightning quick distribution-- 4 years to reward halving) certainly leave something to be desired in fairness.  However most bitcoin enthusiasts see this as a "more fair" system than one in which counterfeiting and related debt-creation fraud are rampant with huge societal costs.  Fairness for the holders of the coins, that they cannot be devalued by any third party, is very much an important part of the equation. 

This can also be seen in alt-coins with large premines which have had difficulties being accepted by the community. 

   

[Richy_T]

I disagree.  The BTC early-adopter allocation (Read: botnet operator allocation) (and lightning quick distribution-- 4 years to reward halving) certainly leave something to be desired in fairness.  However most bitcoin enthusiasts see this as a "more fair" system than one in which counterfeiting and related debt-creation fraud are rampant with huge societal costs.  Fairness for the holders of the coins, that they cannot be devalued by any third party, is very much an important part of the equation.  

This can also be seen in alt-coins with large premines which have had difficulties being accepted by the community.  

  

I happen to quite like the Bitcoin distribution model (I'd like it more if I got in earlier), in fact I think it's just one of the many genius parts of the design and largely responsible for the success we're seeing. However, there's no arguing that some people don't see it as far and I would further suggest that fairness is not a prerequisite for success.

[themusicgod1]

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

With Ripple you control how *valuable* your money of choice is, with obvious limits (you're not going to pull the value of BTC itself up very far, but you will determine to a great extent how much BTC you have to spend)

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

A gateway is "central" in that it interfaces with other currency systems, in ways that normal individuals aren't going to care to.  Without other systems to interact with, gateways would be unnecessary.

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

The catch being that your "printed" debt will only be taken seriously insofar as you are trustworthy.  The free lunch isn't in the printing of the money, trust me.

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

...by someone who has no way of paying that.   ie practically nobody people in the ripple network are not affected by that credit link at all.   All this link is is an expression of utter trust between two nodes -- it is as if the CPU in a single machine is trusting the RAM in that same single machine.  If either malfunctions, the other is probably not usable -- this level of practically infinite trust is useful to represent in some situations.  All it means is that if you trust either, you're effectively trusting both.

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

It's worth remding readers here that XRP is not Ripple, it is a special purpose currency used for spam prevention.  If the half they keep becomes valuable, it will be because of the half they do not keep -- and if *that* becomes valuable, it will be because it is serving a use and adding value to the network.   They will only prosper to the extent that they are increasing the utility of their userbase.  Let the market sort this out.

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.

It is not *finished* yet.  there is a difference between proprietary and unreleased software.  It is true they can still change the rules -- they can wipe the slate clean (this is called a 'jubilee') -- which is why you shouldn't use a beta system for anything of serious value.  You should, instead use villages.cc if you need Ripple to do something in a more verifiable way.

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

Ripple alone could replace central banks.  It builds on top of them only to the extent that it builds on top of *all* trust.

Their current marketing efforts are set to overtake and destroy BTC, with their centralized system.

Big words for someone who's got his own marketing campaign going on to discredit Ripple.

With Ripple, 1 BTC-Bitstamp is 1 BTC-Bitstamp.... - no site lasts forever.

And yet, in the long run we're dead.  What we need is a system that works now, that uses trust that we have now, built on top of human relationships and human computer relationships we have now.  It's true that not all people are equally trustable, and that if you're putting 1BTC through Ripple there needs to be a credit path between you and whatever it is you're trying to send to.  This is by design.  If you are not trustworthy, you will find it difficult to spend any significant amount through the network.  You'll have to default back to Bitcoin and other systems, if so.  However there are more transactions that are possible, more and better opportunities for trade -- and we are making them happen.