Ripple without the ripples?

[jaywaka2713]

Because bitcoin is not an IOU exchange system and would benefit from one. Just look at the amount of topics regarding distributed exchanges.

Bitcoin would die if a "credit" or IOU system was implemented. Digital debt is not something that can even be considered, as who would force such Bitcoins to be returned and repaid?

[1715297734]

1715297734

[Sukrim]

All btc trades that are not settled face to face in cash are IOU trades. Most of the merchants out there give you IOUs in return for btc.

Ripple with btc would extend the capabilities of bitcoin and just like any other use case have no to minimal influence (depending on trade volume) on the actual system.

Bitcoin survives just fine even though besides local bit coins EVERY exchange transaction is using IOUs on at least one side.

Also i suggested to implement vanilla bitcoin next to xrp, these are not debt or IOUs.

[markm]

We could pick a block number at which to archive a copy of the bitcoin blockchain, then decide how many opensource ripples there are going to be and compare that to the number of bitcoins on the archived blockchain. Then anyone who wants some RIpples produces a request signed by a bitcoin address that had bitcoins at the time the blockchain was archived and receives that many ripples and that address is ticked off as having received its allotment of ripples.

That way we can distribute the ripples and not even actually know whether in fact they will all end up redeemed/distributed, since we do not know how many of the bitcoins in the archived blockchain still have somewhere someone or something that knows or remembers (records) the private key that would be needed to actually redeem those ripples.

To avoid a central authority we could do a whole distributed system for ticking off which addresses have been redeemed (and to what ripple address the corresponding ripples were sent. If we even care, or need to know, to what ripple address they went).

A problem with trying to 51% an existing ripple network is the incumbents do not have to listen to anyone they don't want to. They list only the servers they want to as ones to care about when making a consensus. So they can open source the code but just not bother telling any of the existing servers to pay any attention to any new nodes other than ones they hand pick based on the new node having paid them off, having know your customer rules, having anti money laundering procedures in place, being owned by a direct descendant of Bill Gates or Jed or Obama or whatever criteria they choose to use to decide which nodes their node will give any weight to in the "consensus" process.

-MarkM-

[Sukrim]

If you want to distribute XRP according to BTC amounts in addresses, you could even simpler calculate a Ripple address from a BTC address...

[markm]

Yeah but then you will have imported gosh knows how many dead accounts/coins.

Might be better to only have a fixed window of time in which to claim your ripples, after which we will know for sure exactly how many ripples were put into circulation, the rest can just stay dead in the original address from which the distribution was done.

-MarkM-

[QuantPlus]

The Consensus page is just marketing, only code speaks the truth.

Ripple is all marketing at this point.

No one knows if the consensus scheme will work...
When scaled up... or under attack... or decentralized.

The current Ripple network is just a Dev Playground.

There are reasons why they are WAAAAAY behind schedule and not open sourced...
My guess is that there are fundamental problems with the design...

This is a group that can't even debug a Client after 2 years.