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

[Rampion]

Joel, what's your position regarding a Ripple clone in which XRP's are 100% distributed, perhaps through a mining-like process?

I guess that could happen as soon as you release the source code, and I assume you have already thought about that possibility.

[JoelKatz]

Joel, what's your position regarding a Ripple clone in which XRP's are 100% distributed, perhaps through a mining-like process?

I guess that could happen as soon as you release the source code, and I assume you have already thought about that possibility.

It seems like an absurd waste of electricity to me. Mining in Bitcoin is essentially paying people to solve the double-spend problem, rewarding them for providing a useful service. Mining in a system that doesn't require proof of work to secure it is pure waste. It is as silly as Opencoin having an XRP giveaway to whoever wastes the most electricity.

And, again, if we fail because we inspire something that people like better, that's probably the best possible way to fail. But I think that's one of the worst ideas for a Ripple spinoff.

[Rampion]

Joel, what's your position regarding a Ripple clone in which XRP's are 100% distributed, perhaps through a mining-like process?

I guess that could happen as soon as you release the source code, and I assume you have already thought about that possibility.

It seems like an absurd waste of electricity to me. Mining in Bitcoin is essentially paying people to solve the double-spend problem, rewarding them for providing a useful service. Mining in a system that doesn't require proof of work to secure it is pure waste. It is as silly as Opencoin having an XRP giveaway to whoever wastes the most electricity.

And, again, if we fail because we inspire something that people like better, that's probably the best possible way to fail. But I think that's one of the worst ideas for a Ripple spinoff.

I did not say mining - I said a mining-like process. You are going to hold on a high % of the total XRP supply (I've read 20% on some posts, up to 50% on some others). How about a spinoff in which 100% of the Ripples are distributed?

Didn't you think about possible clones that would change only the "premine" thing?

[JoelKatz]

I did not say mining - I said a mining-like process.

I'm not sure what that would be. If you want me to imagine they come up with some perfect way to do it and then ask me if the perfect way is better, then yes, the imaginary perfect way will be better.

You are going to hold on a high % of the total XRP supply (I've read 20% on some posts, up to 50% on some others). How about a spinoff in which 100% of the Ripples are distributed?

I'm sure there will be such a spinoff, perhaps several. I'm not afraid of competition. We did things the way we did it because we genuinely believed that was the best way. If we were wrong, then the better way will win. I will not be terribly upset if the concept wins even if the company doesn't. There are millions of ways to fail and those are among the best.

Didn't you think about possible clones that would change only the "premine" thing?

If we had been able to think of a better way to do it, we would have done it that better way. If other people can think of a better way than we did, then they deserve to win and we deserve to lose.

I'm serious -- we did things the way we did because that was what we believed was best. Not just for us, for everyone. If we were wrong, then so be it.

[Mitzplik]

Joel,

One source of uncertainty about ripple's future is in XRP concentration, what would give the power over its value to few people, as long as its value will be determined by offer and demand and not by an intrinsic value.

People (including myself) can't resist thinking XRP as a crypto-currency better than credit to use the network. It moves faster than BTC and is apparently safe. If XRP becomes liquid and accepted by real business it will gain currency properties. But, if it happens, can you imagine the fear and uncertainty about holding big amounts of a currency that is 50% held by a private company?

Even if XRP was not planned to be a currency and you intended to sell XRP for those who want to use the ripple network, as a source of revenues, people would turn it into a currency, because it is the fuel for the network.

So, IMO the system will be very useful for all currencies, but the safety for XRP holders and the success for it as a currency is in the hands of Opencoin and depends or its decisions. The more XRP is distributed, the more safe and steady and not subjected to gossip it will be.

[Deprived]

Joel, what's your position regarding a Ripple clone in which XRP's are 100% distributed, perhaps through a mining-like process?

I guess that could happen as soon as you release the source code, and I assume you have already thought about that possibility.

Distribution through a mining (or similar) system would be FAR worse than what they're currently doing.  It's about the most inefficient and restrictive way to encourage use.

Ignoring issues with the implementation of things like debt-exchange, the single biggest problem I see ripple facing is the distribution of XRP.  It has to try to solve two diametrically opposed objectives:

1.  Make XRP freely available to legitimate users.
2.  Prevent spammers, hoarders and speculators gaining large quantities of free XRP.

Achieving ONE of those objectives is easy - achieving both VERY hard without making the process of obtaining them prohibitively time-consuming and intrusive.

Mining manages to fail to meet both criteria AND is costly plus slow.  It specifically totally fails on point 1 due to restricting access to only those with appropriate hardware, the willingness to use the mining software AND the readiness to wait until they've successfully mined before using the system.  That would  leave ripple as only usable for 'free' by a small group of people - whilst what (I assume) OpenCoin want is for people unfamiliar with BTC to be able to use it just by signing up with a gateway and getting their handout of XRP (in practice the order may well be reversed - with them getting the free XRP before looking for a gateway).

In short, mining XRP would add complexity, cost and restrictions for no benefit (other than to those who wanted to mine for profit - which there's a never-ending stream of pump and dump altcoins for).

What's wrong with the current XRP system (in my view) is two things:

1.  A lack of clarity on how XRP will be distributed.  This is reminiscent of freicoin and solidcoin with their putative distribution/use of premined coins by some committee with a total lack of detail provided.  This isn't needed just for curiosity - but because without confidence that widespread distribution WILL occur it's hard to see any serious effort/money being put into development of ripple-facing applications.
2.  As mentioned in an earlier post by me, an unnecessary focus on the sale of premined and retained XRP as the source of profit for OpenCoin rather than their reward coming from adoption of ripple itself.  Yes - there's obviously some correlation between the success of the two, but also scope for a conflict of interest.  Whilst OpenCoin will claim (and may well be doing so honestly) that they're not focussed on the sale of XRP at the expense of the 'main' project they've deliberately created that potential conflict of interest.  An alternative approach (simplified) would be to premine, give out ALL the XRP but then have ones that are currently destroyed in transactions instead returned to them as a fee.  Then to make a profit they'd HAVE to get ripple adopted and widely used.

[Rampion]

As mentioned in an earlier post by me, an unnecessary focus on the sale of premined and retained XRP as the source of profit for OpenCoin rather than their reward coming from adoption of ripple itself.  Yes - there's obviously some correlation between the success of the two, but also scope for a conflict of interest.  Whilst OpenCoin will claim (and may well be doing so honestly) that they're not focussed on the sale of XRP at the expense of the 'main' project they've deliberately created that potential conflict of interest.  An alternative approach (simplified) would be to premine, give out ALL the XRP but then have ones that are currently destroyed in transactions instead returned to them as a fee.  Then to make a profit they'd HAVE to get ripple adopted and widely used.

Brilliant, indeed.

[MPOE-PR]

And that's the conflict of interest they've created for themselves.

An excellent example of what inept execution means.

[CurbsideProphet]

An alternative approach (simplified) would be to premine, give out ALL the XRP but then have ones that are currently destroyed in transactions instead returned to them as a fee.  Then to make a profit they'd HAVE to get ripple adopted and widely used.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the realization that this doesn't really solve anything.  Ripple is based on the hope that it will become widely adopted (i.e. enormous growth).  If all of the XRP were distributed, it would still be held by a very small fraction of the populace.  There's a bit more distribution than the current control by one major corporation but in the end, you're still talking about a very small percentage of people controlling the majority share of XRP. 

The better way to do it would be to have a controlled disbursement of XRP, similar to the creation curve in Bitcoin.  Rather than one corporation holding the lion's share of XRP or dumping all XRP to early adopters, XRP gets distributed to the user base over the course of a few decades.  This would encourage acceptance, reward early adopters, and still allow for new users to get their share of the pie.  Unfortunately, this type of distribution does not seem to be possible.  I have a feeling the creators of Ripple did not go down this road because they did not want to be seen as a Bitcoin copycat, but in doing so, I think they created a system that will be very hard for people to adopt as it is abundantly clear that unlike Satoshi, the creators of Ripple wield all of the power.

[themusicgod1]

An alternative approach (simplified) would be to premine, give out ALL the XRP but then have ones that are currently destroyed in transactions instead returned to them as a fee.  Then to make a profit they'd HAVE to get ripple adopted and widely used.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the realization that this doesn't really solve anything.  Ripple is based on the hope that it will become widely adopted (i.e. enormous growth).  If all of the XRP were distributed, it would still be held by a very small fraction of the populace.  There's a bit more distribution than the current control by one major corporation but in the end, you're still talking about a very small percentage of people controlling the majority share of XRP. 

The better way to do it would be to have a controlled disbursement of XRP, similar to the creation curve in Bitcoin.  Rather than one corporation holding the lion's share of XRP or dumping all XRP to early adopters, XRP gets distributed to the user base over the course of a few decades.  This would encourage acceptance, reward early adopters, and still allow for new users to get their share of the pie.  Unfortunately, this type of distribution does not seem to be possible.  I have a feeling the creators of Ripple did not go down this road because they did not want to be seen as a Bitcoin copycat, but in doing so, I think they created a system that will be very hard for people to adopt as it is abundantly clear that unlike Satoshi, the creators of Ripple wield all of the power.

Except the power weilded by xrp is an insignificant fraction of that weilded by other currency within the ripple network to the point where this power is irrelevant

[CurbsideProphet]

An alternative approach (simplified) would be to premine, give out ALL the XRP but then have ones that are currently destroyed in transactions instead returned to them as a fee.  Then to make a profit they'd HAVE to get ripple adopted and widely used.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the realization that this doesn't really solve anything.  Ripple is based on the hope that it will become widely adopted (i.e. enormous growth).  If all of the XRP were distributed, it would still be held by a very small fraction of the populace.  There's a bit more distribution than the current control by one major corporation but in the end, you're still talking about a very small percentage of people controlling the majority share of XRP. 

The better way to do it would be to have a controlled disbursement of XRP, similar to the creation curve in Bitcoin.  Rather than one corporation holding the lion's share of XRP or dumping all XRP to early adopters, XRP gets distributed to the user base over the course of a few decades.  This would encourage acceptance, reward early adopters, and still allow for new users to get their share of the pie.  Unfortunately, this type of distribution does not seem to be possible.  I have a feeling the creators of Ripple did not go down this road because they did not want to be seen as a Bitcoin copycat, but in doing so, I think they created a system that will be very hard for people to adopt as it is abundantly clear that unlike Satoshi, the creators of Ripple wield all of the power.

Except the power weilded by xrp is an insignificant fraction of that weilded by other currency within the ripple network to the point where this power is irrelevant

Irrelevant?  Hardly.  Even OpenCoin would be foolish to agree with you as their whole profitability model is based around the hope that XRP is most definitely relevant.  If you look at the ripple network as a series of moving and interconnected gears, XRP is the grease.  No grease, those gears seize up and nothing moves, that's hardly trivial.

[GeekyCreeper]

Two scammers and we aren't seeing any scammer or untrustworthy tag.

TradeFortress is a little controversial (although I believe he is firmly in the scammer camp for deliberately misleading newbies).

But there can be absolutely no question that BFL is a bad actor and needs the label right away.

Why are you abdicating your responsibilities?

Bull crap. I will defend TradeFortress until I die. Not a scammer. Legit. CoinChat is legit. Inputs.io is legit. Ripple scam is legit. Glados.cc is legit. TradeFortress is legit. 'Nuff said.

BFL is not a scam. They only take years to release miners. It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

You sir, are a moron.

[becoin]

It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

How soon will BFL start doing what they are paid for by their customers has nothing in common with bitcoin price!

[MPOE-PR]

Bull crap. I will defend TradeFortress until I die. Not a scammer. Legit. CoinChat is legit. Inputs.io is legit. Ripple scam is legit. Glados.cc is legit. TradeFortress is legit. 'Nuff said.

BFL is not a scam. They only take years to release miners. It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

You sir, are a moron.

Meanwhile the ripple scam is blowing over, and the despicable shill that started this entire thread is much less vocal. So I guess we can forget about this for now, until MrShills find some new shady "business" to push much to the amusement of non noobs.

[qxzn]

Bull crap. I will defend TradeFortress until I die. Not a scammer. Legit. CoinChat is legit. Inputs.io is legit. Ripple scam is legit. Glados.cc is legit. TradeFortress is legit. 'Nuff said.

BFL is not a scam. They only take years to release miners. It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

You sir, are a moron.

Meanwhile the ripple scam is blowing over, and the despicable shill that started this entire thread is much less vocal. So I guess we can forget about this for now, until MrShills find some new shady "business" to push much to the amusement of non noobs.

+1

[Anduck]

Two scammers and we aren't seeing any scammer or untrustworthy tag.

TradeFortress is a little controversial (although I believe he is firmly in the scammer camp for deliberately misleading newbies).

But there can be absolutely no question that BFL is a bad actor and needs the label right away.

Why are you abdicating your responsibilities?

Bull crap. I will defend TradeFortress until I die. Not a scammer. Legit. CoinChat is legit. Inputs.io is legit. Ripple scam is legit. Glados.cc is legit. TradeFortress is legit. 'Nuff said.

BFL is not a scam. They only take years to release miners. It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

You sir, are a moron.

He's legit? He scams newbies and tells them they will get free 1 btc when they do thing X. They don't get free 1 BTC. Isn't that scamming? + all other stuff that's unreliable BUT could be true. But that ripple stuff is known to have happened.

Is it really so talking can make you non scammer even if you scam?

[Anduck]

Two scammers and we aren't seeing any scammer or untrustworthy tag.

TradeFortress is a little controversial (although I believe he is firmly in the scammer camp for deliberately misleading newbies).

But there can be absolutely no question that BFL is a bad actor and needs the label right away.

Why are you abdicating your responsibilities?

Bull crap. I will defend TradeFortress until I die. Not a scammer. Legit. CoinChat is legit. Inputs.io is legit. Ripple scam is legit. Glados.cc is legit. TradeFortress is legit. 'Nuff said.

BFL is not a scam. They only take years to release miners. It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

You sir, are a moron.

He's legit? He scams newbies and tells them they will get free 1 btc when they do thing X. They don't get free 1 BTC. Isn't that scamming? + all other stuff that's unreliable BUT could be true. But that ripple stuff is known to have happened.

Is it really so talking can make you non scammer even if you scam?

Also I must add: I really can't take it serious when you first praise TF and then say BFL didn't scam. FYI they lied about shipping times (1 year and counting) and chip efficiency and whatnot.

[digitalindustry]

Not at all.  Merely questioning exactly what makes TF's troll a "Luddite attack."

He's convincing people to hurt themselves with powerful technology as a way of arguing that people are too dumb to have that technology or the technology is bad because it enables people to hurt themselves. It's completely different from arguing that there should be better safeties or warnings.

For example, consider a hammer. A person can bash their thumb with a hammer. The Luddite argument is that because people can bash their thumb with a hammer, hammers are bad. Or, worse, convincing people to use hammers carelessly so you can show lots of pictures of black and blue thumbs to stop this scourge of evil hammers. It's not at all the same as arguing that because people can bash their thumbs with a hammer, people need to understand how to safely use hammers or that it might be worth investigating whether a hammer can be designed such that it's more difficult to hit your thumb.

I agree with Joel here , and lol at the input.io scam so I guess , he went "full retard" after all.

But unfortunately what I would explore Joel is the nature of the society in which we exist, unfortunately thats the one we have to work with,  there is such a "normalization" of debt issuance ingrained in the human society , there is no way that these principles will function because the "person" will always trust.

Thats my bet.

[sublime5447]

Two scammers and we aren't seeing any scammer or untrustworthy tag.

TradeFortress is a little controversial (although I believe he is firmly in the scammer camp for deliberately misleading newbies).

But there can be absolutely no question that BFL is a bad actor and needs the label right away.

Why are you abdicating your responsibilities?

Bull crap. I will defend TradeFortress until I die. Not a scammer. Legit. CoinChat is legit. Inputs.io is legit. Ripple scam is legit. Glados.cc is legit. TradeFortress is legit. 'Nuff said.

BFL is not a scam. They only take years to release miners. It keeps the price from changing dramatically.

You sir, are a moron.

Still standing by this?

[Coinseeker]

Still standing by this?