Theymos: What the fuck is up with BFL and TradeFortress?

[CurbsideProphet]

Still, proving how defective a system such as Ripple can be, by luring (newbie) people into loosing actual wealth should not be allowed.

It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.

That's not comparable at all, it's rather apples and oranges.  You're comparing a Bitcoin third party to Ripple, not Bitcoin to Ripple.  If you were able to show that wealth was lost from the Bitcoin code itself that would be a comparable analogy.  What TF did was entirely within the Ripple system, unless you have an analogy where Bitcoin itself was compromised, your argument falls apart.  

[The 4ner]

Still, proving how defective a system such as Ripple can be, by luring (newbie) people into loosing actual wealth should not be allowed.

It's roughly comparable to proving that Bitcoin is broken by starting an exchange or web-based wallet and then running off with the money or tricking people into deleting their wallet files. It's a Luddite attack on Bitcoin, Ripple, and technology in general -- an attempt to prove that people are too stupid to have powerful tools.

That's not comparable at all, it's rather apples and oranges.  You're comparing a Bitcoin third party to Ripple, not Bitcoin to Ripple.  If you were able to show that wealth was lost from the Bitcoin code itself that would be a comparable analogy.  What TF did was entirely within the Ripple system, unless you have an analogy where Bitcoin itself was compromised, your argument falls apart.  

Actually apples and oranges do share similar characteristics. Just saying...

[JoelKatz]

What TF did was entirely within the Ripple system, unless you have an analogy where Bitcoin itself was compromised, your argument falls apart.  

It wasn't entirely within the Ripple system. He approached people outside the Ripple system and used mechanisms outside Ripple to convince them to do things. And it wasn't Ripple itself that was compromised, it was just the accounts of the people who did what he told them to do. He told people to tell Ripple to consider a worthless asset as equal in value to a valuable asset, and Ripple did exactly what they told it to do. He used social engineering to induce people to tell a system to do dumb things, then the system did dumb things, and then he blamed it on the system rather than on himself.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

No, the design of the system is bad. If it didn't automatically trade IOUs for you, then nobody would have lost any BTC.Bit stamp.

[JoelKatz]

No, the design of the system is bad. If it didn't automatically trade IOUs for you, then nobody would have lost any BTC.Bit stamp.

Sure they would have. If it didn't do it automatically, you would just have had to trick them into enabling it. There's no reason to think that would have been any more difficult than tricking them into trusting you.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Because people fall for "delete wallet.DAT", right?

[JoelKatz]

Because people fall for "delete wallet.DAT", right?

http://www.hrmorning.com/would-you-trade-your-password-for-a-candy-bar/

Sadly, we see amoral people using zero day exploits to empty people's Bitcoin wallets. Is that a flaw in Bitcoin?

[Rampion]

Because people fall for "delete wallet.DAT", right?

http://www.hrmorning.com/would-you-trade-your-password-for-a-candy-bar/

Sadly, we see amoral people using zero day exploits to empty people's Bitcoin wallets. Is that a flaw in Bitcoin?

There are two major and fundamnetal flaws in the Ripple system: trust and debt, and those flaws will be exploited endlessly.

[JoelKatz]

There are two major and fundamnetal flaws in the Ripple system: trust and debt, and those flaws will be exploited endlessly.

These same flaws exist in the conventional financial system. At least in Ripple, you get to choose precisely who you will trust and, by default, trust no one. If you had to make something perfect to make it better, there would never be any progress.

[Rampion]

There are two major and fundamnetal flaws in the Ripple system: trust and debt, and those flaws will be exploited endlessly.

These same flaws exist in the conventional financial system. At least in Ripple, you get to choose precisely who you will trust and, by default, trust no one. If you had to make something perfect to make it better, there would never be any progress.

Considering that Ripple is a layer of additional trust and debt over the conventional financial system which is precisely based on trust and debt, it's not strange at all to find much hate for it inside the Bitcoin community.

At the end of the day, Bitcoin was designed to put to an end the need to rely on intrinsecally flawed, trust based systems.

[JoelKatz]

Considering that Ripple is a layer of additional trust and debt over the conventional financial system which is precisely based on trust and debt, it's not strange at all to find much hate for it inside the Bitcoin community.

Except you get to choose precisely who you trust. In the conventional financial system, you have no such option and are pretty much stuck with your local currency and your local financial institutions.

At the end of the day, Bitcoin was designed to put to an end the need to rely on intrinsecally flawed, trust based systems.

Yeah, the problem is how we get from here to there. Ripple is like a bridge in that way. For example, one huge problem is the lack of systems that support hard fiat, particularly in the United States. Ripple can solve that.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

More BS from OpenCoin about how ripple "benefits" Bitcoin, more at 11.

[Rampion]

Considering that Ripple is a layer of additional trust and debt over the conventional financial system which is precisely based on trust and debt, it's not strange at all to find much hate for it inside the Bitcoin community.

Except you get to choose precisely who you trust. In the conventional financial system, you have no such option and are pretty much stuck with your local currency and your local financial institutions.

I acknowledge you are taking the trust problem to another, "distributed" level, but I see too many negative incentives in extending lines of trust and exploiting its vulnerabilities, and this degrades the economy.

And honestly, introducing your own 100% premined crypto is the cherry on the cake. Sometimes Im amazed to see so many newbies praising Ripple, I wonder if they understood a) which problems Bitcoin was designed to solve and b) why it works.

[Deprived]

What TF did was entirely within the Ripple system, unless you have an analogy where Bitcoin itself was compromised, your argument falls apart.  

IHe told people to tell Ripple to consider a worthless asset as equal in value to a valuable asset, and Ripple did exactly what they told it to do.

No - he did NOT tell them to do that.  And they didn't tell  ripple to consider the two as equal in value.

Ripple AUTOMATICALLY considers them as equal in value without any such request being made.  That's the problem - a shame you can't see it or won't accept or won't admit it.  Not only does ripple immediately consider them as being equal in value it also (without being asked to - and with no way to prevent it unless in the inner-circle) allows others to exchange your holdings of one for holdings of the other.

TF didn't explain to users the ramifications of extending trust.  But he didn't tell them to do anything to cause a change in the default behaviour of ripple.  As it stands ripple FORCES worthless BTC-denominated debt to be treated as equal value to redeemable BTC-denominated debt.

Or maybe you'd like to explain how a ripple user COULD extend trust to TF and NOT be forced by the software to accept his debt in return for other BTC debt?

[ervalvola]

No - he did NOT tell them to do that.  And they didn't tell  ripple to consider the two as equal in value.

Ripple AUTOMATICALLY considers them as equal in value without any such request being made. 

Deprived, whether you like it or not, but it isn't automatic, they actually told Ripple to consider the two as equal in value by trusting TradeFortress.

Or maybe you'd like to explain how a ripple user COULD extend trust to TF and NOT be forced by the software to accept his debt in return for other BTC debt?

exactly. He can't. Why should you trust someone for 1 USD if you know he's not going to repay that USD?

[qxzn]

No - he did NOT tell them to do that.  And they didn't tell  ripple to consider the two as equal in value.

Ripple AUTOMATICALLY considers them as equal in value without any such request being made. 

Deprived, whether you like it or not, but it isn't automatic, they actually told Ripple to consider the two as equal in value by trusting TradeFortress.

Y'all are arguing semantics. The key point here is that, by default (and it's not adjustable in the UI), when you trust two gateways for the same currency, Ripple assumes that means you are willing to trade one for the other. This is broken. If I trust mtgox for 1000 USD and bitstamp for 1000 USD, it doesn't mean I'm willing to trade mtgox USDs for bitstamp USDs at a 1:1 ratio.

The fact that the OpenCoin guys continue to claim this is a good idea demonstrates that they have no idea how risk works.

Why do you think the price of bitcoin over the last couple of weeks between Bitstamp and Mtgox had a multiple-percentage spread? Understand this, and you'll understand why present-day Ripple is broken.

Ripple might still survive and be useful one day, but not until this is fixed.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

A good example would be the Brazilian exchange which had a ~25% arbitrage profit. Guess what, 'hacked' a few days later.

[ervalvola]

Y'all are arguing semantics. The key point here is that, by default (and it's not adjustable in the UI), when you trust two gateways for the same currency, Ripple assumes that means you are willing to trade one for the other. This is broken. If I trust mtgox for 1000 USD and bitstamp for 1000 USD, it doesn't mean I'm willing to trade mtgox USDs for bitstamp USDs at a 1:1 ratio.
...
Why do you think the price of bitcoin over the last couple of weeks between Bitstamp and Mtgox had a multiple-percentage spread?

qxzn, you're right, but you watch the system from a trader perspective, and, for advanced users, there actually is a way to distinguish between different IOUs and trade them.

But a simply consumer should only be able to pay someone through a gateway (or many) which he believes to be trustworthy.
The problem is that this feature, in my opinion, is a strong point of Ripple, because it allows money to "ripple" through users and find a pathway to anyone you want to give your IOUs, in whatever currency you want.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

LOL no, that's not a good feature, there has already being PAGES of discussions on why it's a bad idea.

Let's say a FDIC insured gateway pays 1% APR interest on your fiat. You can't trust anyone else, otherwise you would lose interest as obviously this is worth more than another dollar. Not all debt are equal in value.

Also, what you are saying is a contradiction, if people only trust few gateways the debt will not 'ripple' through the network. That only happens if people trust a lot. So, what do you mean again?

[qxzn]

But a simply consumer should only be able to pay someone through a gateway (or many) which he believes to be trustworthy.
The problem is that this feature, in my opinion, is a strong point of Ripple, because it allows money to "ripple" through users and find a pathway to anyone you want to give your IOUs, in whatever currency you want.

I'm kinda curious what Ripple looks like without this feature. For two reasons. First, the OpenCoin guys don't seem like they get the fact that it's broken.. are they forced to defend it because Ripple is useless without this feature? Second, as a trader I obviously think it would be useful to trade Mtgox USDs for Bitstamp USDs, which doesn't rely on the broken feature. Can I just have that part?