Worried about Mt Gox? What does this price fall mean for BTC and its clones?

[TheWhale]

You misinterpret the argument. An IOU can be determined as money. The problem with Ripple and most fiat systems is that an intermediary determines the value of the fiat apart from the value of the original asset.  Not only do buyers of Ripple have to content with the risk of bitcoin (changes in protocols by developers) but they are also subject to the whims of the Ripple creators.

The network is only subject to the whims of the Ripple creators when it comes to distribution of XRP. That is not relevant for its use as an IOU network.

They create additional risk where it is not needed.

They most certainly do, but again it is only relation to XRP. For now, the network is fairly centralized, but any open alternative will be too at the start. Gateways are an essential intermediary to be able to actually convert IOUs, and companies are not breaking down the door vying to do this yet.

They are the  good smith's who write IOUs that can potentially coming fraud against Ripple participants by changing the value of ripples independent of the value of bitcoin.

This is not an accurate portrayal of how ripple works. I have no vested interest in convincing you though.

The network is subject to the whims of the ripple creators when ever they change the protocol of the role network. Not only can they increase distribution but they can also increase total ripples changing the value of ripples reason to other crypto currencies. Again anything can be done with a software update. So yes Ripple adds additional,  unnecessary risk.

What do you think the Bitcoin core developers are doing? Picking their noses? They decide on the direction for Bitcoin as well.

Every point you make can be related back to Bitcoin. Which makes me nervous (for you), as you seem to have jumped the gun into crypto without doing any research at all. Do you even understand anything? Your arguments get worse and worse. If you knew anything, the 100 billion XRP is set in stone.

Please, keep going. At first I thought you were a troll. Now I just feel sorry for you.

[Sukrim]

XRP are ~7.5% distributed amongst users, RippleLabs doesn't issue any IOU, so these are 100% not under their control. Also anderl did not post proof of Ripple's alledged centralization by the way.

These charts are so wrong, it is hard to find a starting point. For one thing 1 Bitcoin address != 1 Bitcoin user. These stats are based on address balances, not users. XRP can NOT be controlled by their creators, since it in fact is an open source and distributed system (just like Bitcoin too - the Satoshi block chain acts as central authority there) and most people would likely disagree with them issuing more XRP to themselves.

It is really frustrating to take time to post educated opinions by the way if the other party is just copy-pasting big red text instead of answering in a meaningful way. If you want to have the same experience (without the big red text, as this is disabled there) please go e.g. to the battle.net forums and open a thread there convincing people that it would be a great thing for Blizzard to accept BTC for WoW subscriptions.

Dumb as read  Wikipedia. I did provide proof and you quoted it but you are so wrapped up in  spreading propaganda that you didn't see it in front of your face.   I know you and the whale came here with an agenda to push Ripple on people here trying to fill them into thinking is an investment without telling them that Ripple is a derivative. You and him use dishonest debate tactics like deflection of topic and attacks on the debater.

Again the proof that  Ripple is centralized....

As of November 30, 2012, 7.2 billion XRP have been distributed.[19] As of January 20, 2014, the World Community Grid (through ComputingForGood) gives away 1.5 million XRP per day to individuals who donate spare processor time to analyze aspects of the human genome, HIV, dengue fever, muscular dystrophy, cancer, influenza, rice crop yields and clean energy. [22] The amount of XRP distributed can be found on the Ripple website and their movement tracked through the Ripple Live Network. [23]

That is centralized control. Bitcoin is distributed by a computer algorithm.  Ripple is distributed by people. They can decide to dump them all at once. They can just increase the size of the available ripples when ever they feel like. Ripple is like a central bank.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)

You seem to constantly confuse "Ripple" (the decentralized payment protocol/network) with "XRP" (aka. "ripples", the native unbacked asset on Ripple, centrally issued and owned by RippleLabs and the founders of Ripple). This seems to be a constant error people around here make, as they are used to single-asset networks (e.g. Bitcoin, Litecoin, ___coin).

I would not recommend anyone to "invest" into XRP or buy any more than what they are needing to use the system "Ripple" (which is less than 1 USD worth at current rates) and while there are certainly people who are hyping XRP as being the next, better Bitcoin, I am definitely not one of them (I own far more BTC than XRP, at current rates). I actually prefer to hold Bitcoins by the way as a store of value and have been doing so since 2010.

I can understand people not being fond of XRP and I also have plans to deal with this issue of having only a single native asset on Ripple, I have other things to do though as well and my solution would only benefit the community, not me as developer, so I'd need funding for that. Anyways, until then please specify if you mean "Ripple (payment protocol)" or "ripple (currency, aka. XRP)" when you claim centralization. One is (openly!) centralized, the other one isn't. Both for good reasons.

[heartthew]

The ripple concept is a brilliant one. The part of the main arguments against it being an IOU system are weak (it's not real money!--except this is a construct that is millennia old). Its execution leaves a lot to be desired, though. There is no advantage to anyone using the ripple system vs. a more open competitor.

And, those who are going around and saying half-truths like 28 billion have been distributed without noting that 20 billion of that has been distributed to its coders is not the way to honestly market it. But you know that, and you know that the honest marketing does not sound very appealing.

You misinterpret the argument. An IOU can be determined as money. The problem with Ripple and most fiat systems is that an intermediary determines the value of the fiat apart from the value of the original asset.  Not only do buyers of Ripple have to content with the risk of bitcoin (changes in protocols by developers) but they are also subject to the whims of the Ripple creators.

Ripple creators as  a company can be  bought, sold, paid off, or controlled by governments. They create additional risk where it is not needed. They are the  good smith's who write IOUs that can potentially coming fraud against Ripple participants by changing the value of ripples independent of the value of bitcoin.

No good has come from using derivatives in financial markets as  they always lead to financial crisis.

No. As you have displayed consistently throughout this thread. You have missed the complete point of the OP. Let me repeat the topic.

Centralized exchanges have long governed Bitcoin transactions. From the plights of Bitinstant to the regulatory, technical demise of Mt. Gox to the wipeouts of centralized wallets by hacking, we have witnessed costly screwups by centralized players. Subject to regulation and easily targeted by world governments and hackers alike, centralized exchanges have no place in the new economy. Tragically, the Bitcoin community has trashed the very savior of Bitcoin transactions from the start: Ripple. Ripple offers a means to conduct transactions instantly with little to no fees in a decentralized manner. This means no longer do we have to wait for confirmations or trust exchanges to be technically capable or safe from a regulatory standpoint - no longer do we have to rely on centralized merchanting solutions. We can bypass confirmation times and reduce fraud to zero by conducting merchanting on the Ripple protocol.



Ripple is just too complex for some. I get it, you are one of those people. There is nothing to be ashamed of. I guess the big colorful pictures on ripplscam.org help you understand their point of view. Maybe I can make a picture book about Ripple. I'll sign it and send you a free copy. It might make things more simpler for you  

You being a cocky imbecile isn't going to work. You made a thread to promote something you are invested in, and offer NO convincing counterarguments to the problems with the NETWORK, all while attacking personally everyone who disagrees.

Fuck off, you beached blob of blubber.  You're obviously someone stupid enough to have invested in something no one wants.

YOU ARE THE IMBECILE.

Enjoy further discrediting Ripple with your tactics.

[Sukrim]

You made a thread to promote something you are invested in, and offer NO convincing counterarguments to the problems with the NETWORK, all while attacking personally everyone who disagrees.

To be fair, you wrote quite a few personal attacks too...

Anyways, to your "question":
You did not point out any single problem in this thread actually (as this is your second post here).

The network related issues I saw so far in this thread are:

Did not know who wrote it. The problems remain though, the currency is partly centralized with its central server use, i believe most servers are run by the company itself (there is no incentive to run a server too) and there is a very hefty, up to absurd, premine (25%)

This is on one hand not true (most servers are ran by the community), on the other hand it still is true (most of these trust RippleLabs' validators to be honest and did not diversify their UNLs). Currently there are ongoing efforts to give server operators better tools to create proper UNLs.

Ripple is centralised through few ledgers. Ledger owners can make a cartel and scam people.

What the, I don't even... No. Just no.
Moving on:

I've tried my hardest to like Ripple, used it for 6 months. I have no issue with the distribution. The issue is the way it works. ITS A ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS. I still ahve coins in my wallet that I can't work out how to sell cause I have to set up a gateway with a specific trader. ITS AWFUL it drove me to tears.

That's an actual problem, as the public servers are often crowded, overloaded or slow. I recommend anyone who is serious about trading on Ripple to take the time and set up a local rippled + client. It can be VERY fast, reliable and fun to trade there, or you might have to deal with websockets that silently seem to die out, clients showing up as offline or similar stuff.
The issue with not knowing how the stuff works is also a milder issue, just like with Bitcoin documentation will be better over time I hope though.

Citation needed.  I have proof of ripple's centralized control as it is part of the architecture.  It was designed that way.

There still was no proof posted anywhere... moving on

I have tried ripple and found it a huge pain in the ass.

Uhm... moving on

Nothing is changeable in ripple instantly. It only looks so because you're not actually trading anything but IOU, i.e. meaningless 'bank notes' that say that you own 1 BTC. However, you owning 1BTC is completely dependent on your trust network, and when shit will hit the fan, you'll lose everything you own, just like with our current banking system. Not only that, but you expose yourself to unnecessary risk just by using the ripple network.

If you want to withdraw BTC from the ripple network to your computer wallet in which you OWN ACTUAL BTC, it will still take you 1 hour because you'll have to take someone's BTC and send them to your wallet through the BTC network (and thus wait 60 minutes for ~6 comfirmations). Not only that but the 60 minutes you wait is a proof of security. Faster transaction times are only marginally more secure, because the network is backed by the amount of computer time that passed in order to grow the blockchain to the size it has.

While the second paragraph is not really a good or correct description of Bitcoin and other PoW coins, it is sufficiently correct. The first paragraph is also technically correct (you don't trade assets, you trade ownership of an asset). If you actually want to trade though, you will have to give up ownership of BTC before being allowed to trade them to a neutral trusted third party. This is necessary risk. I wouldn't recommend using Ripple gateways to store your pension fund either but as with any exchange or webwallet/hot wallet to just keep enough there that you can do smaller transactions for convenience items. Unlike banks, dedicated Ripple gateways likely have to follow e-money issuer licensing which mandates that a full reserve has to be kept at all times amongst other things. Anyways, yes - there are counterparty risks with Ripple and while you reduce some other risks (e.g. trading engines - the reason for at least 2 BTCUSD crashes so far or exchanges going offline or halting trading for some time as well as opaque order books) you add risks in different areas (Ripple as software, HFT not really possible, markets not that developed atm).

The  difference between bitcoin and ripple.



Ripple is the PRISM of Cryptos. Ripple can easily be easily subjugated by the NSA since it is a corporation and has to abide by National laws,  homeland security.

Ah, the picture that confuses the masses.
The main thing that's wrong about this:
Bitcoin is not decentralized as suggested by that picture, it has a central block chain that records global state and everyone has to have this exact database, otherwise it woudn't work. BitTorrent is similar with trackers/swarms as is Skype with their centralized account infrastructure. Ripple too has a central database (called ledger), all rippled servers have to keep in sync with it, or they are not actually running "Ripple", just like Bitcoin servers on a different genesis block are not actually running Bitcoin but a fork of it.

Also PayPal or Amazon are definitely not working as you see in this picture, since the servers there need to be aware of other servers too, or they risk double spending or inconsistent state. OpenTransactions actually tries to apply partly such a structure as seen on the right in this picture and it is a VERY interesting approach!

Anyways, that picture does not mean what you think it means, it is incorrect in nearly everything that's written on or below it and even though a lot of people suddenly seem to act as if they got a PhD in distributed systems design just by looking at this, they did not. Sorry. It's very nice to look at and apparently easy to understand though, so it might have some value as example.

slingshot's rambling

I think I answered this already before.

The ripple concept is a brilliant one. The part of the main arguments against it being an IOU system are weak (it's not real money!--except this is a construct that is millennia old). Its execution leaves a lot to be desired, though. There is no advantage to anyone using the ripple system vs. a more open competitor.

This is one of the more interesting ones - the thing is that with payment networks like Ripple and also Bitcoin it depends a lot on network effects and adoption rates. There is little reason to use MasterCard if you can use Visa everywhere it is accepted. Starting your own competing credit card however is going to be really hard, if not impossible unless you can beat MC/V on nearly every battlefield that exists - and even then, there is a good chance that they will adapt and absorb your innovations. Just like people predict Bitcoin will act in the Altcoin scene.

Yes, this. So it will be forked, the good stuff used and the bad stuff left behind.
Splash looks nice but there is no news as of late.

I agree splash sounds nice, most people seem to focus on XRP as "bad stuff" though, not so much else.

The problem with Ripple and most fiat systems is that an intermediary determines the value of the fiat apart from the value of the original asset.

No. Markets made against XRP are not a requirement at all to use Ripple.

The network is subject to the whims of the ripple creators when ever they change the protocol of the role network. Not only can they increase distribution but they can also increase total ripples changing the value of ripples reason to other crypto currencies. Again anything can be done with a software update. So yes Ripple adds additional,  unnecessary risk.

This is wrong as well, anderl just needs to read the source code of rippled for that. The chance that additional XRP are created is about as high as additional BTC being created beyond 21 millions. Surely possible (and even easier in Bitcoin by changing a single line) BUT definitely not going to be accepted by the network.


So... enough answered for now or do you have some actual real questions/concerns beyond pointing out who is an imbecile?

[Slingshot]

Exchanges hold the REAL ASSETS, of their clients. Let their clients trade them. Then later distribute them back to their clients. Only one entity must be trusted in this case; the Exchange.

 Where as on Ripple there are at a minimum of two Gateways that must be trusted, and that's at a minimum, to get the real underlying asset cleared and home. And that's in the best case situation. If one extends any trust elsewhere on the Ripple Network then suddenly one can be held fully liable for any of those trusted and their failure to own up to those IOU's.

Nope, this is plainly wrong - there are gateways (like Bitstamp) that issue several currencies e.g. USD and BTC. Also you are NOT going to be out of money if some other gateway you don't have anything to do with fails. You probably misunderstood how Ripple works, if you trust a gateway that has no trust lines to ripple to other gateways (and why should they?!) this is a closed ecosystem to trade. The advantage of Ripple is that you are free to open it for you, e.g. you can easily trade for other balances and you are not locked in to the one you first used.

Gateways also hold the REAL ASSETS of their clients, that's all they do - they let them use these assets (to be traded or transacted) on Ripple instead of forcing them to use their own (mostly) closed source opaque trading engine, that's the only difference to a Bitcoin exchange and that does not have to do anything with how the assets are represented.

Ripple can be maybe more easily understood as a competitor to BitPay: You trust a gateway (e.g. BitPaygateway) in a single currency (e.g. USD) and set up a way to deposit/withdraw this (e.g. you tell them your bank account). If someone wants to pay you, you will receive USD by BitPaygateway, not the BTC (or EUR or LTC or...) the person used to pay you. To pay you, in BitPay the payer has to trust BitPay with her BTC ("Pay 0.01 BTC to this addresss to send x USD to $Merchant: 1asdfg...") and also accept their market rates. In Ripple she only needs to own a balance that can somehow be traded for BitPaygateway USD and can optionally set trading offers herself if she doesn't like the current market situaion and thinks someone might rather take her offer. To make this trade you don't need to trust BitPaygateway for USD by the way...

Anyways, as I said, Ripple is not that easy to understand and there is a lot of misinformation around. Your understanding is simply wrong (or only partially correct, to put it in kinder words). If you want to talk about facts, the ones you stated above are simply not true. You do not have to trust any gateway to trade on Ripple. You do not have to trsut more than one gateway to deposit/withdraw anything on Ripple. You cannot be defrauded for more than you trusted a fraudilent entity (in Bitcoin terms: Even though pirateat40 had probably a debt of several million BTC but only a few 10k in "real" BTC, this did not affect the amount of BTC people had displayed at MtGox at that time) and Bitcoin exchanges do trade, transfer (in some cases), issue and redeem IOUs. Ripple gateways only issue and redeem them, they are traded and transferred on Ripple.

Sukrim, Wait just a minute: I must trust BOTH Bitstamp and SnapSwap, for instance, to clear a trade from BTC to USD. So that equals 2, not merely one exchange. Thus doubling my risk, from my objective point of view.

 I have no dog in this game.

 I have no agenda.

 It doesn't matter to myself if Ripple succeeds or fails.

 But it would aid everyone if we could really lay out what the risk are, and compare.


 This is before I start trusting others, such as friends, family, associates, business contacts, or anyone else for certain amounts of "trust".

 This isn't anything compared to merely trusting one entity. Such as any of the exchanges that offer fiat to crypto exchange services. And visa versa.

 I am not confused. Your using deflection and more to twist things around.

 Fact is: I must trust in two gateways. Not just one. And that's at a minimum. Before I dare to trust anyone for say 1 btc, who could then default on their IOU and then myself see my own btc taken from my gateway where I transfer it to later on, and then SURPRISE, because I trusted a friend, or whoever, for 1 btc, and they defaulted the rippling wave comes back to haunt me instead. Because I trusted another person.

 I can't believe this tread has marched down such a deceitful path.

 I leave you all now. But I was extremely compelled to lay out the facts as best I know and can determine them so that others don't get involved without understanding the finer points, and the level of risks involved.

 Yes, it may work out fine. But so far I only trust in Bitstamp, and not a fiat exit agent (what Ripple terms is a Gateway). So far I don't trust any other Gateway besides Bitstamp. And until other Gateways earn that trust over time, and without many complaints from users I wont tread into these waters. I would like to do so. But the risks are not the same, their in fact higher. Every time we add another risk on top of an existing one we are then that much more at risk, of losses.

 It's sad to see that there is no agreements in this tread except for two opposite, and diabolically opposing statements.

 But the proof is in the very framework of Ripple, versus the traditional Broker/Exchange service.

 Ripple wants to act as a railway, but without enough trusted gateways. It's as simple as that. And why it's not yet succeeding at capturing major interest and involvement. Except of course from mainstream sock puppets and shills, plus some others of course.

 It's very interesting. But I still pass. 1+1 = 2, but please, I know, you will claim that's not true either.
Give up. Your not even laying out why I am mistaken, but instead doing anything but that.

Example:

Sukrim stated: "...Nope, this is plainly wrong - there are gateways (like Bitstamp) that issue several currencies e.g. USD and BTC. Also you are NOT going to be out of money if some other gateway you don't have anything to do with fails..."


 What does that even mean??? So why even bother with 'rippling my btc's to Bitstamp if I already have a Bitstamp account? In other words: if I want to sell some btc but don't want to have the long wait for a bank wire, and the costs of that, then I must instead use another gateway such as Snapswap, to exit to usd. And that means trusting two gateways, not merely one. So it's you that are wrong here. Maybe you didn't understand, but then it doesn't seem that you desire to do that. But instead sling mud at anything and anyone that has objections or criticizes things concerning Ripple. Maybe it would be best to sell some ripple so you could be more objective yourself. Or if your in Ripple's employ then maybe slow down and try to understand what and why others are stating what they are, and then go from there.

 Lastly: the "...Also you are NOT going to be out of money if some other gateway you don't have anything to do with fails..."

 IF I understand correctly, and IF I had trusted them for whatever amounts, and then they IOU that amount elsewhere, and then don't pay that amount. Well at some point later, I may have to pay it for them, if they abuse that trust amount I extended to them. But if that isn't true, well it would be news to most that have spent a great deal of time trying to understand what many of us are now fed up to the max with.

 On top of that we now are subject to abusive behavior from two here in this tread, including suddenly yourself. The point is that Ripple just lost my interest, completely. I may not be the brightest bulb, far from it in fact. But it's difficult to cheat or con an honest person who does their due diligence.

 Where as your not even warning anyone anywhere of the risks due to these finer points about the IOU trust model wrapped around Ripple's Network, and instead downplaying them, and here, in a fraudulent way by stating it's the same as anywhere else, when in fact the risks are higher. Not to mention telling me I am all wrong when in fact you and your pal were just rooted out as what is in the eye's of the beholder...

 I am done with the thread now, and this entire topic. Maybe Ripple 2.0 will work for myself, but not the current system and my current two gateways that are required for fast to and from fiat to crypto.

[hypostatization]

Here is what an actually centralized Ripple competitor looks like:

https://www.klickex.com

Paypal is another example of a centralized system that implements a subset of Ripple functionality.

A good way to look at it is: Ripple picks up where Bitcoin leaves off.

Bitcoin is beautiful, but relies on centralized endpoints for anything that occurs off the block chain. Ripple is an open distributed currency-agnostic protocol and network for enabling payment and exchange that begins at those centralized endpoints, and provides a distributed network between those endpoints and end users. Aspects of both systems are subject to centralization, and they solve for the concerns of centralization at different levels; they are complementary.

Ripple Labs is transparent about all of this---no scam.

A lot of people do not realize that Ripple is being designed to operate transparently, in addition to direct usage. Via the Federation protocol, it should be possible for future users to make payments with their preferred currency, without ever needing to deal directly with IOUs or Ripple itself. It will act as a pass-thru in those use cases. It is a distributed near real time cross-currency open payment and exchange network and protocol that you do not need to even be aware of using.

Low friction cross-currency payment ability is essential to supporting a more open future.

[Sukrim]

Sukrim, Wait just a minute: I must trust BOTH Bitstamp and SnapSwap, for instance, to clear a trade from BTC to USD. So that equals 2, not merely one exchange. Thus doubling my risk, from my objective point of view.

No, you do not have to trust both to trade, in fact you don't need to trust any of them if you only want to trade. Also you can choose to use a different issuer for BTC or USD (e.g. DividendRippler or SnapSwap for BTC or Bitstamp for USD and BTC if you just want to pay 0.2% on Bitstamp trades).

Please outline what exactly you want to do - if you want to deposit BTC and withdraw USD, you once need to trust the gateway you deposit BTC at until you got the BTC on Ripple, then you need to make a trade for USD you think you can withdraw (no trust in Ripple needed for that and outside Ripple only due diligence needed and likely some AML documentation) and then you somehow need to withdraw the USD you got - however that gateway you chose handles this. It can be the same you used for BTC or something else.

Fact is: I must trust in two gateways.

No. I can buy for example LTC.DividendRippler for XRP right now without ever trusting anyone on Ripple for LTC. I can then withdraw these LTC to any LTC address that I enter in DividendRippler and will have them credited on the LTC block chain within the hour. All without ever trusting anyone.

Before I dare to trust anyone for say 1 btc, who could then default on their IOU and then myself see my own btc taken from my gateway where I transfer it to later on, and then SURPRISE, because I trusted a friend, or whoever, for 1 btc, and they defaulted the rippling wave comes back to haunt me instead. Because I trusted another person.

On one hand it's your own fault if you trust unreliable individuals (like the stunt TradeFortress pulled off), however nowadays trust lines are set to "NoRipple" by default, so this won't work any more.

But the proof is in the very framework of Ripple, versus the traditional Broker/Exchange service

"Traditional exchange": Deposit money, get IOU, sell IOU on internal market, get different IOU on internal market, withdraw different IOU, receive other money/asset in hand/wallet.
Ripple gateway: Deposit money, get IOU on Ripple, sell IOU on global open Ripple market, get different IOU there (potentially from a different gateway), withdraw different IOU (potentially to the different gateway), receive other money/asset in hand/wallet.

The only difference is that you can choose the issuers of your IOUs, they do not HAVE to be the same as on "traditional" exchanges so you have more freedom of choice there. If you want to reduce risk by e.g. only using Bitstamp IOUs like you would do if you would trade on Bitstamp internal anyways you can do that. In your example (trading BTCUSD) you can for example trust Bitstamp for BTC and USD (they issue both) and trade, or if you like SnapSwap they also issue BTC and USD, so you can use them for both sides as well. If you would like to use the XAU gateway in Singapore however because you are a gold bug and want to spend your BTC from Bitstamp there, you can do that too.

Just because you CAN choose, does not mean you HAVE TO choose.

What does that even mean??? So why even bother with 'rippling my btc's to Bitstamp if I already have a Bitstamp account?

If you are happy to trade on Bitstamp feel free to do so by all means! Again, Ripple is closer to BitPay than Bitcoin, so if you would like to be pay stuff in BTC and be paid in BTC, Ripple will enable this. Once a gateway enables for example PayPal incoming and outgoing payments, you can pay any PayPal merchant using your BTC on Bitstamp. So far you can pay any BTC address. Not that interesting for Bitcoin bulls, if you however would like to keep USD on your account but buy something on bitcoinstore.com, you can do that.

Maybe it would be best to sell some ripple so you could be more objective yourself. Or if your in Ripple's employ then maybe slow down and try to understand what and why others are stating what they are, and then go from there.

I got my XRP for free in giveaways, so why should I sell them to be able to be more objective? Also I'm not employed by RippleLabs, if that's what you're hinting at and as I already wrote, I'm far more invested in BTC than XRP anyways (and again: I do not recommend or endorse anyone to buy XRP beyond a single USD).

IF I understand correctly, and IF I had trusted them for whatever amounts, and then they IOU that amount elsewhere, and then don't pay that amount. Well at some point later, I may have to pay it for them, if they abuse that trust amount I extended to them. But if that isn't true, well it would be news to most that have spent a great deal of time trying to understand what many of us are now fed up to the max with.

You seem to confuse Ripple with the older "community credit" version from villages.cc or Ryan Fugger's initial ideas. The current implementation would allow for something like that if you jump through a few hoops. It would be easily detectable though and likely illegal to do that for the gateway in western jurisdictions. Definitely not worth it to pull that off after getting a MSP license... Also anyone you deposit BTC at could make a run - why do you act as if gateways would be suddenly trying to steal from you left and right who have to stay far more honest (as they can be audited via a public ledger) than any random Bitocin service out there? I can tell you down to the Satoshi how many BTC DividendRippler has to have. Do you know the total balance of all accounts at MtGox? Should you know that before doing business with them?

Where as your not even warning anyone anywhere of the risks due to these finer points about the IOU trust model wrapped around Ripple's Network, and instead downplaying them, and here, in a fraudulent way by stating it's the same as anywhere else, when in fact the risks are higher. Not to mention telling me I am all wrong when in fact you and your pal were just rooted out as what is in the eye's of the beholder...

Please tell me again that the "assets deposited" at whatever exchange reflink you were pushing are not the same thing as assets deposited at any Ripple gateway...

If that exchange were running on Ripple it would work completely the same, just with a cryptographically verifiable open order book that can't be manipulated at will by the exchange owner.

[nextgencoin]

Centralized exchanges have long governed Bitcoin transactions. From the plights of Bitinstant to the regulatory, technical demise of Mt. Gox to the wipeouts of centralized wallets by hacking, we have witnessed costly screwups by centralized players. Subject to regulation and easily targeted by world governments and hackers alike, centralized exchanges have no place in the new economy. Tragically, the Bitcoin community has trashed the very savior of Bitcoin transactions from the start: Ripple. Ripple offers a means to conduct transactions instantly with little to no fees in a decentralized manner. This means no longer do we have to wait for confirmations or trust exchanges to be technically capable or safe from a regulatory standpoint - no longer do we have to rely on centralized merchanting solutions. We can bypass confirmation times and reduce fraud to zero by conducting merchanting on the Ripple protocol.

Why hasn't the Bitcoin community caught on? Now is the perfect time - when Mt. Gox withdraws finally come through send that Bitcoin to the Ripple protocol and enjoy freedom once more!


Instead of disregarding Ripple because some Bitcoiner has told you that it is centralized (lie), Ripple isn't open-source (lie) or Ripple is premined (this isn't bitcoin, there is no wasteful mining - lie), think for yourself for once. Remember this. Ripple is competing with BitPay, NOT Bitcoin.

If you do not understand Ripple, I suggest Peercover.com - incredibly user friendly!

Its ironic you choose Ripple to overcome problems of MTgox ie centralized exchanges. I just had Bitcoin trapped in Bitstamp the main gateway for Bitcoin on Ripple. NXT is the only truly centralized trading we have....

[Sukrim]

Well, you could withdraw them right now to Ripple, trade them for BTC.DividendRippler or BTC.Peercover and withdraw them to anywhere on the block chain within a few minutes max. You could also try if Bitstamp's Bitcoin bridge is still operational.

There is not much arbitrage opportunity to be made by withdrawing BTC from Bitstamp, if you really do need to withdraw for whatever reason, it is certainly possible though.

[Ix]

Anyways, that picture does not mean what you think it means, it is incorrect in nearly everything that's written on or below it and even though a lot of people suddenly seem to act as if they got a PhD in distributed systems design just by looking at this, they did not. Sorry. It's very nice to look at and apparently easy to understand though, so it might have some value as example.

I might not have a PhD in distributed systems design, but I'm pretty familiar with them, and at least at this point I think those pictures are fairly accurate representations. Although one could very well argue that bitcoin is more similar to the picture on the right as well with mining pools being the centralized authorities.

This is one of the more interesting ones - the thing is that with payment networks like Ripple and also Bitcoin it depends a lot on network effects and adoption rates. There is little reason to use MasterCard if you can use Visa everywhere it is accepted. Starting your own competing credit card however is going to be really hard, if not impossible unless you can beat MC/V on nearly every battlefield that exists - and even then, there is a good chance that they will adapt and absorb your innovations. Just like people predict Bitcoin will act in the Altcoin scene.

Well most altcoins are crap that don't solve the distribution problems of bitcoin, they specifically want to emulate it for a pump n dump. Ripple, on the other hand, made no secret that they would have control. And it's been what, 1.5+ years now and bitstamp is still really the only major gateway? I may be way off on this, I haven't kept up with Ripple. I would like to think that is because of the XRP distribution, but it's probably more because the world isn't really ready yet for it. There is still ample opportunity for a new contender that will obviate the need for RippleLabs. For the future of all forms of cryptocurrency, people really need to tell centralizing schemes to fuck off.

[TheWhale]

I don't think we will be seeing heartthew back again  

[Sukrim]

Anyways, that picture does not mean what you think it means, it is incorrect in nearly everything that's written on or below it and even though a lot of people suddenly seem to act as if they got a PhD in distributed systems design just by looking at this, they did not. Sorry. It's very nice to look at and apparently easy to understand though, so it might have some value as example.

I might not have a PhD in distributed systems design, but I'm pretty familiar with them, and at least at this point I think those pictures are fairly accurate representations. Although one could very well argue that bitcoin is more similar to the picture on the right as well with mining pools being the centralized authorities.

No. You do not need to connect to mining pool servers directly, also miners have very high incentives to directly peer with at least 50% of the total hashing power of the network, ideally even more. It depends a lot though what you actually are representing with the stuff in the pictures - if it is miners connecting to pools, then it would be kinda ok I guess. Still not a very good way to explain things and still wrong with the examples.

Well most altcoins are crap that don't solve the distribution problems of bitcoin, they specifically want to emulate it for a pump n dump. Ripple, on the other hand, made no secret that they would have control. And it's been what, 1.5+ years now and bitstamp is still really the only major gateway? I may be way off on this, I haven't kept up with Ripple. I would like to think that is because of the XRP distribution, but it's probably more because the world isn't really ready yet for it. There is still ample opportunity for a new contender that will obviate the need for RippleLabs. For the future of all forms of cryptocurrency, people really need to tell centralizing schemes to fuck off.

It's been 1 year and 1 1/2 months now, Bitstamp seems to still be a major player, other ones are SnapSwap, RippleCN, Peercover, RippleIsrael, JustCoin, TheRockTrading, WisePass, RippleUnion and DividendRippler. I would rather see for example Altcoins or native BTC implemented into Ripple as native asset in some way or another (yes, I know that this means tracking an external blockchain for validators) competing with XRP rather than having a mining fork, I am nevertheless still excited for Splash (if it ever materializes that is...).

@TheWhale:
Was that huge blockquote really necessary for that one-liner?

[bitaccumulation]

I know there is a lot of hatred for Ripple because many view it as a centralized currency that was pre-mined, but it is essentially a distributed and decentralized exchange.

You can trade BTC, LTC, DOGE, USD or any other currency just like you do on any other exchange.  Only difference is that Ripple has "bridges" that allow you to send your coins to the blockchain pretty much instantly (half hour or so) without having someone OK them.  

You also have the ability to transfer your funds into something that has no third party risk (XRP) - and although many do not like XRP because it was all pre-mined, it has value and can't be stolen without a secret key (just like Bitcoin).   This is the one thing missing in most exchanges.  You need to keep your coins with the exchange so you can trade, but if you want them on the blockchain you need to send them off the exchange (TIME AND MONEY).   This can all be sidestepped with Ripple.  

Here's an exchange (gateway) that has implemented this on Ripple... https://peercover.com/#/simpleGateway

You need a Ripple wallet and about 25 xrp (50 cents) to get started.  No other XRP is required except a .00001 xrp fee on trades.

NOTE: EVERY EXCHANGE IS CENTRALIZED.  Currently - only Ripple allows you to remove SOME of that centralization and remove some of the risk of things happening like the current MTGOX debacle.  

PS - if you are too lazy to figure out how to use a decentralized exchange that is still in Beta, how are you going to figure out how to use a non-functional pre-mine like NXT or something else that tries to mimic Ripple but hasn't figured out how to do it yet?

[heartthew]

I don't think we will be seeing heartthew back again  

What would ever make you think that?

No walls of text will make Ripple any more appealing, and this is evident in the lack of adoption.

Enjoy the beach!

[1369]

Here is some great information about what the gold smiths used to do with storing gold and using derivatives like IOUs back in the day.

From Commodity to Bank-Debt Money
http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html

and the second part

Creating Money << this is what ripple is trying to do with bitcoin.
http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity2.html

Great, so now you don't understand the psychology behind trading. The little fish follow the trends, who do you think is setting those 'perceived' trends?

So from your colorful graphs, it doesn't matter that nearly 30% of all BTC are held by less than 50 people. And you assume that these 47 entities have little to no influence on the price? So if Satoshi or the US Government expressed that they would be dumping their BTC holdings, this would have no adverse effect on BTC? Wow. Just wow. No wonder why you don't get Ripple nor can provide any citations for your own FUD campaign which I explicitly asked for in my last post.

You are so naive. Therefore, I have concluded that you are a troll. Is there a TrollCoin yet? I'll tip you.

Why there just happens to be a Trollcoin!

[Slingshot]

 Here's one for irony:

 Who founded Mt. Gox?

 Who founded Ripple?

 Yea, the very same person, but he sold his interest in Mt. Gox a while back.

 What's his name?

 And what else do some speculate about him?

 How did I learn of this?

 Where?


  P.S. How many Bitcoin's does Satoshi really have?

[Spoetnik]

http://www.coindesk.com/has-company-found-workaround-mt-gox-withdrawals/

[XCASH]

http://www.coindesk.com/has-company-found-workaround-mt-gox-withdrawals/

Thanks for the gox story link.

[Sukrim]

Here's one for irony:

 Who founded Mt. Gox?

 Who founded Ripple?

 Yea, the very same person, but he sold his interest in Mt. Gox a while back.

 What's his name?

 And what else do some speculate about him?

 How did I learn of this?

 Where?


  P.S. How many Bitcoin's does Satoshi really have?

Gox: Jed McCaleb
Ripple: Ryan Fugger

I don't know or care what people speculate about them or what kind of websites you visit. If you want to spread the lie that Jed might be the original author of Bitcoin, sorry that's highly unlikely.

Satoshi has probably more than a million btc under his control, it can however only be estimated, not proven.