Ripple - the real Bitcoin competition?

[mmeijeri]

And please don't say something stupid like "This is a good thing, it keeps people honest".

It's not stupid, it's the truth. Yes, irrationality can trigger a stampede, but that will only be a problem for those exchanges that practice fractional reserve banking. Then that is the problem, not the XRP exchange rate, and the offending exchanges will be quickly eliminated, thus solving the problem. I'm not going to hold large sums of money at an exchange, or in the form of IOUs until they have earned my trust, which may take a very long time.

[1715536783]

1715536783

[1715536783]

1715536783

[1715536783]

1715536783

[mmeijeri]

Just one more quote...so you are telling me that I could go down to my local police station and report to the police that Bitstamp wouldn't let me redeem my Ripple Dollars   Sorry just can't help laughing when I think about the look on the policeman's face.

No different than Mt Gox really. Do you think they could get away with not letting people withdraw their balances?

[dave111223]

And please don't say something stupid like "This is a good thing, it keeps people honest".

It's not stupid, it's the truth. Yes, irrationality can trigger a stampede, but that will only be a problem for those exchanges that practice fractional reserve banking. Then that is the problem, not the XRP exchange rate, and the offending exchanges will be quickly eliminated, thus solving the problem. I'm not going to hold large sums of money at an exchange, or in the form of IOUs until they have earned my trust, which may take a very long time.

Unless of course the "Good" (non-fractional reserve) gateways had allowed people to redeem IOUs from other gateways before they realized there was run on; in which case their reserves (which includes IOUs from other gateways) are no longer sufficient to cover their own IOUs; despite being 100% funded.

And if you can only redeem your IOUs at the same gateway that you received them...then wtf is the point of Ripple?

And I find it pretty odd that much of your reasoning behind Ripple being a sound/safe system is that "I'm not gonna keep much money in it anyway"...so I guess it is pretty safe then, cause you didn't put much money in to lose...

[mmeijeri]

Unless of course the "Good" (non-fractional reserve) gateways had allowed people to redeem IOUs from other gateways before they realized there was run on; in which case their reserves (which includes IOUs from other gateways) are no longer sufficient to cover their own IOUs; despite being 100% funded.

It would still be their own fault, since they would not be managing their credit risk wisely.

And if you can only redeem your IOUs at the same gateway that you received them...then wtf is the point of Ripple?

You can still trade them with others through Ripple. As long as the exchange in question is solid, it's much quicker, cheaper and more anonymous than using the banking system. If the exchange is really solid, IOUs would only be redeemed infrequently compared to the number of transactions. IOUs are what allows you to trade in fiat currencies on the Ripple network.

And I find it pretty odd that much of your reasoning behind Ripple being a sound/safe system is that "I'm not gonna keep much money in it anyway"...so I guess it is pretty safe then, cause you didn't put much money in to lose...

I think the system is solid, but I want to see the source first before I start risking large amounts of money. And any financial institution will have to earn my trust, regardless of what software they use.

[dave111223]

Unless of course the "Good" (non-fractional reserve) gateways had allowed people to redeem IOUs from other gateways before they realized there was run on; in which case their reserves (which includes IOUs from other gateways) are no longer sufficient to cover their own IOUs; despite being 100% funded.

It would still be their own fault, since they would not be managing their credit risk wisely.

And if you can only redeem your IOUs at the same gateway that you received them...then wtf is the point of Ripple?

You can still trade them with others through Ripple. As long as the exchange in question is solid, it's much quicker, cheaper and more anonymous than using the banking system. If the exchange is really solid, IOUs would only be redeemed infrequently compared to the number of transactions. IOUs are what allows you to trade in fiat currencies on the Ripple network.

So let me get this straight any gateway that allowed IOUs from other gateways would be taking on credit risk and in the event of a run would not be able to pay back 100% of it's own IUOs because of the IOUs of other gateways it held were defaulted.

You have said that it's people own fault for using these kind of gateways that are exposed to the above credit risk.  So you would therefore say that all people should use gateways that only redeem IOUs that they issued themselves (and are therefore able to pay off 100% of their IOUs)

So lets assume all gateways only redeem their IOUs (because people would be silly to use a gateway exposed to risk you said).

Person A logs into Bitstamp, deposits Bitcoins, sends them to Ripple a Bitcoin IOU

Person B logs into Weexchange, deposits USD, sends them to Ripple a USD IOU

Person A trades their Bitstamp Bitcoin IOU for Person B's Weexchange USD IOU.

Person A logs into their own Weexchange account and redeems the USD IOU and withdraws their USD

Person B logs into their Bistamp account and redeems the Bitcoin IOU and widthdraws their Bitcoins.

Now ask yourself, what was the point in all that?  When they could have both just logged into Bitstamp and done the trade directly without ever having to go to Ripple?

[Odalv]

Ripple project started before Bitcoin and it never was (and never will) a succesfull project.

[mmeijeri]

So let me get this straight any gateway that allowed IOUs from other gateways would be taking on credit risk and in the event of a run would not be able to pay back 100% of it's own IUOs because of the IOUs of other gateways it held were defaulted.

You have said that it's people own fault for using these kind of gateways that are exposed to the above credit risk.  So you would therefore say that all people should use gateways that only redeem IOUs that they issued themselves (and are therefore able to pay off 100% of their IOUs)

You should only trust gateways that have earned your trust, likely through frequent audits of their assets and liabilities. And that includes IOUs issued by other gateways. Note that gateways could accept IOUs issued by other gateways at less than face value. The exchange rates between the various IOUs for the same currency issued by different issuers would be the best market estimate of their relative reliability.

So lets assume all gateways only redeem their IOUs (because people would be silly to use a gateway exposed to risk you said).

It's likely to start that way, unless some very widely trusted banks get in the game.

Now ask yourself, what was the point in all that?  When they could have both just logged into Bitstamp and done the trade directly without ever having to go to Ripple?

If the market is comfortable with holding IOUs for a while, then you wouldn't have to redeem the IOUs after every transaction. In fact, between individuals this could be a very convenient mechanism to split a check after a dinner in a restaurant. Granting a person a trust line means you'll accept their self-issued IOUs up to a certain limit.

[paraipan]

...

You should only trust gateways that have earned your trust, likely through frequent audits of their assets and liabilities. And that includes IOUs issued by other gateways. Note that gateways could accept IOUs issued by other gateways at less than face value. The exchange rates between the various IOUs for the same currency issued by different issuers would be the best market estimate of their relative reliability.

So lets assume all gateways only redeem their IOUs (because people would be silly to use a gateway exposed to risk you said).

It's likely to start that way, unless some very widely trusted banks get in the game.

...

Oxymoron spotted! I think you're preaching to the wrong choir buddy.

[mmeijeri]

Oxymoron spotted! I think you're preaching to the wrong choir buddy.

There are a few AAA banks and credit unions left, but not many.

[moocowpong1]

So let me get this straight any gateway that allowed IOUs from other gateways would be taking on credit risk and in the event of a run would not be able to pay back 100% of it's own IUOs because of the IOUs of other gateways it held were defaulted.

You have said that it's people own fault for using these kind of gateways that are exposed to the above credit risk.  So you would therefore say that all people should use gateways that only redeem IOUs that they issued themselves (and are therefore able to pay off 100% of their IOUs)

So lets assume all gateways only redeem their IOUs (because people would be silly to use a gateway exposed to risk you said).

Person A logs into Bitstamp, deposits Bitcoins, sends them to Ripple a Bitcoin IOU

Person B logs into Weexchange, deposits USD, sends them to Ripple a USD IOU

Person A trades their Bitstamp Bitcoin IOU for Person B's Weexchange USD IOU.

Person A logs into their own Weexchange account and redeems the USD IOU and withdraws their USD

Person B logs into their Bistamp account and redeems the Bitcoin IOU and widthdraws their Bitcoins.

Now ask yourself, what was the point in all that?  When they could have both just logged into Bitstamp and done the trade directly without ever having to go to Ripple?

The key here is that Ripple creates economic incentives for people to mediate this kind of transaction. Person C can hold WeExchange and Bitstamp IOUs, and let Ripple trade them for a small fee. Person A would only use WeExchange, Person B would only use Bitstamp. If Person A wanted to send USD to Person B, Ripple would give Person C their WeExchange IOUs and give Person C's Bitstamp IOUs to Person B. There's a market for Person C's fee, so it will tend to approximate the actual cost of moving money between gateways (in bulk, after netting.)

If nobody's providing this service between two gateways, there's a huge incentive to step in and make it possible, because you can set whatever fees you want. If the fees are too high, there's an incentive to step in and compete by trading IOUs with lower fees. It's more or less inevitable that if there are two gateways in use for a certain currency, a market for liquidity between their IOUs will spring up. Currently I understand these markets are rather sparse and illiquid, in part because the client doesn't have support for setting those fees yet, and in part because there's only one major gateway right now.

[dave111223]

So let me get this straight any gateway that allowed IOUs from other gateways would be taking on credit risk and in the event of a run would not be able to pay back 100% of it's own IUOs because of the IOUs of other gateways it held were defaulted.

You have said that it's people own fault for using these kind of gateways that are exposed to the above credit risk.  So you would therefore say that all people should use gateways that only redeem IOUs that they issued themselves (and are therefore able to pay off 100% of their IOUs)

You should only trust gateways that have earned your trust, likely through frequent audits of their assets and liabilities. And that includes IOUs issued by other gateways. Note that gateways could accept IOUs issued by other gateways at less than face value. The exchange rates between the various IOUs for the same currency issued by different issuers would be the best market estimate of their relative reliability.

So lets assume all gateways only redeem their IOUs (because people would be silly to use a gateway exposed to risk you said).

It's likely to start that way, unless some very widely trusted banks get in the game.

Now ask yourself, what was the point in all that?  When they could have both just logged into Bitstamp and done the trade directly without ever having to go to Ripple?

If the market is comfortable with holding IOUs for a while, then you wouldn't have to redeem the IOUs after every transaction. In fact, between individuals this could be a very convenient mechanism to split a check after a dinner in a restaurant. Granting a person a trust line means you'll accept their self-issued IOUs up to a certain limit.

I don't see why I would want to trust a series of inter-indebted gateways, by holding IOUs in Ripple, when I could either:

1) Trust the gateway directly (example by just hold my USD or Bitcoin directly in my Bitstamp balance)

2) Trust purely in the market/a single protocol (hold in Bitcoin wallet)

3) Truth a government and hold fiat directly

Why would i choose option 4:
4) Hold an IOU in a gateway that is holding IOUs from other gateways as the reserve for my balance, hold this IOU with a virtual currency protocol, having the virtual currency protocol controlled by a single governing body.

When you look at it; it's actually balling up and combining the risks from all 1,2,3 + a little extra risk to spice it up.

Anyways bed time...look me up in 10 years and we'll see where Ripple is; I took my $500USD and cashed out, i'll either look like a fool or a smart guy by then.

[afbitcoins]

Have added the ripple scam website to my sig.
edit: its not working how do you add a url to your sig ?

http://ripplescam.org/

Ripples are a way persuade people to forget bitcoins, and move back into inflationary centralised debt.

[ElectricMucus]

Funny how this is the same exact rhetoric was used against LTC, now that battle was lost Bitcoin zealots have a new scapegoat to attack.

I would even go as far as saying they are reliable anti-indicators.

[afbitcoins]

Funny how this is the same exact rhetoric was used against LTC, now that battle was lost Bitcoin zealots have a new scapegoat to attack.

Theres a world of difference between LTC and Ripple, Litecoins has all the same benefits and attributes as bitcoins, just with some parameters tweaked. Ripples are debt and the economy is centrally controlled. I'll endorse bitcoins, and all its clones but definately not ripples.

[mmeijeri]

I don't see why I would want to trust a series of inter-indebted gateways, but holding IOUs in Ripple, when I could either:

There is no reason you must do so, but for each of the alternatives you mention there are reasons why some might choose to do so.

1) Trust the gateway directly (example by just hold my USD or Bitcoin directly in my Bitstamp balance)

You could do so, but then you are at risk of seizure / blocking by the government in whose jurisdiction the gateway operates.

2) Trust purely in the market/a single protocol (hold in Bitcoin wallet)

Then you'd have exchange rate risk and exchange fees because not everybody accepts Bitcoin right now.

3) Truth a government and hold fiat directly

Not a good course of action for many governments.

Why would i choose option 4:
4) Hold an IOU in a gateway that is holding IOUs from other gateways as the reserve for my balance, hold this IOU with a virtual currency protocol, having the virtual currency protocol controlled by a single governing body.

Maybe because you live in Zimbabwe, or maybe because you want to launder drugs money, or money made by providing seedboxes for BTC etc etc, or because your government has outlawed Bitcoin and you cannot trade it openly.

[ElectricMucus]

Funny how this is the same exact rhetoric was used against LTC, now that battle was lost Bitcoin zealots have a new scapegoat to attack.

Theres a world of difference between LTC and Ripple, Litecoins has all the same benefits and attributes as bitcoins, just with some parameters tweaked. Ripples are debt and the economy is centrally controlled. I'll endorse bitcoins, and all its clones but definately not ripples.

Uhh, debt without interest that is...ripple requires people to trust each other, bad! bad! Not so with BTC there is no trust required and scamming people works without consequences, now isn't that nice?
XRP is just the financing model opencoin did choose, if you have a problem with that just have as much XRP as you need.

The real reason ripple is attacked is that XRP is truly deflationary and that makes Bitcoin "Investors" feel threatened. Ironically the ones they should fear the most come out of their midst.

[drawingthesun]

Ripple is designed to facilitate currency exchange, not product exchange, they aren't meant to be a currency.

Except the core developers and OpenCoin have admitted that XRP is intended to be a currency and they require it to have speculative value so they can fund development selling XRP to the public. Why do you think XRP is not meant to be a currency? Even the official word is that it is meant to be a currency. Ripple supporters are so misinformed its not even funny.

[ElectricMucus]

Ripple is designed to facilitate currency exchange, not product exchange, they aren't meant to be a currency.

Except the core developers and OpenCoin have admitted that XRP is intended to be a currency and they require it to have speculative value so they can fund development selling XRP to the public. Why do you think XRP is not meant to be a currency? Even the official word is that it is meant to be a currency. Ripple supporters are so misinformed its not even funny.

That "not meant to be a currency" goes for things like trading goods and (third party) services for it, which it really isn't intended to be used for. But intention and outcome often differ, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
After all I don't see any mechanism that would prevent that.

[ElectricMucus]

Ripple is designed to facilitate currency exchange, not product exchange, they aren't meant to be a currency.

Except the core developers and OpenCoin have admitted that XRP is intended to be a currency and they require it to have speculative value so they can fund development selling XRP to the public. Why do you think XRP is not meant to be a currency? Even the official word is that it is meant to be a currency. Ripple supporters are so misinformed its not even funny.

There is one of the paradox that no one has ever been able to resolve: in order for OCRipple to work, XRP must have both almost no value and also - at the same time - substantial value. I have asked about this many times and never heard a good answer. I strongly suspect it is because the XRP aspect was tacked on after the fact just as a money maker for OpenCoin.

Everything about their entire project just reeks of style over substance and milking Fugger original project for a chance to be an early adopter in the cryptocurrency realm. It'd be like if Coca Cola tried to make a cryptocurrency system.

You already have your answer...
https://ripple.com/blog/ripple-reserve-lowered-by-75/

[mmeijeri]

That "not meant to be a currency" goes for things like trading goods and (third party) services for it, which it really isn't intended to be used for. But intention and outcome often differ, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
After all I don't see any mechanism that would prevent that.

I think that must be their goal, how else would their XRP holdings become valuable?