Ripple vs Bitcoin

[CurbsideProphet]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

[1714891170]

1714891170

[1714891170]

1714891170

[1714891170]

1714891170

[adpinbr]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

Exactly, part of the strength of bitcoin is fungibility. So long as gateways are limited to banks then we would expect to see fungibility of dollar IOUs unless there is a potential run on the bank, but the dream of anyone becoming a gateway isn't feasible because the trust level of each gateway is not the same

[adpinbr]

Just to make it clear, I am not pro BTC or XRP. I am liquid and pro profit. I am ideologically inclined towards bitcoin still want to maximize profit, I think that bitcoiners are attacking irrelevant issues with ripple (premine, technology) rather than the fundamental question of how does a halawa network work on a global scale. If it does ripple or a competitor will succeed, but I don't think it does

[mmeijeri]

Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

That's exactly what the trust relation is for. Do not tell Ripple to trust people that you don't actually trust. Similarly, don't store money at exchanges you don't trust. The only difference is that Ripple explictly talks about trust and IOUs, while exchanges typically pretend their IOUs are real dollars. There is exactly the same kind of counterparty risk as with Ripple. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

[mmeijeri]

the fundamental question of how does a halawa network work on a global scale. If it does ripple or a competitor will succeed, but I don't think it does

Ripple is the combination of a cryptocurrency (XRP) + a digital hawala system (rippling) + a distributed exchange. It makes no sense to compare rippling to BTC, the right comparison is XRP to BTC and rippling + exchange to Bitcoin exchanges. And it so happens that the largest exchange, Bitstamp, also is a Ripple gateway, so the two systems are intertwined already.

[mmeijeri]

Exactly, part of the strength of bitcoin is fungibility. So long as gateways are limited to banks then we would expect to see fungibility of dollar IOUs unless there is a potential run on the bank, but the dream of anyone becoming a gateway isn't feasible because the trust level of each gateway is not the same

Apart from the fact that you are making the category error of comparing rippling to bitcoin, it isn't even true that the ideal is that IOUs issued by different users should be fungible. The trust system exists precisely because they fundamentally cannot be fungible any more than bonds issued by corporation X and bonds issued by corporation Y are fungible. Ripple distinguishes between issuers precisely because the counterparty risk isn't identical. In addition, counterparty risk is a function of both the issuer and the holder, a function of their real world relationship. People are much more likely to default on obligations to anonymous strangers than on those to close associates.

[jonald_fyookball]

so far, NO ONE can explain even one benefit of Ripple.  is this a joke?

[NWO]

so far, NO ONE can explain even one benefit of Ripple.  is this a joke?

Congratulations! Embrace your new title. You have been marked as a retard.

[NWO]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

If a completely anonymous stranger wanted to borrow 1 BTC from you, would you trust him?

[Bit_Happy]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

If a completely anonymous stranger wanted to borrow 1 BTC from you, would you trust him?

With enough collateral, yes.
ps. Do you think your comment answered his point?

[CurbsideProphet]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

If a completely anonymous stranger wanted to borrow 1 BTC from you, would you trust him?

Nope.  But if a completely anonymous stranger wanted to give me 1 BTC, I'd gladly let him.  That's the problem to me, TF was giving away IOUs, which shouldn't be able to come back and hurt the holder of said IOU.  But they were hurt due to the interchangeability between IOUs. 

If someone gives you an IOU and fails to pay, that's the counterparty risk.  But to intermingle IOUs between multiple issuers makes everything opaque and near impossible to assess risk.

[CurbsideProphet]

I see Ripple also tried their own quasi-mining attempt with the Computing for Good project.  But like everything else they do, it fails before it even gets off the ground.

[jonald_fyookball]

so far, NO ONE can explain even one benefit of Ripple.  is this a joke?

Congratulations! Embrace your new title. You have been marked as a retard.

Ooh a meme, so clever.  I guess you are scared to make an assertion about the value of ripple
because there is none.

[Sukrim]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

Since this was not sufficiently answered so far imho, I'll give it another shot...

Yes, this has been addressed, new trust lines are created with the "No Rippling" flag enabled by default in the official client (the general default when using the API still is "rippling enabled", though it can be argued that someone who writes their own client might also be able to set flags as she pleases). It also is an option exposed in the UI, so it is easy to set/unset this flag on existing trust lines too.

The basic problem (trusting someone who is not trustworthy) though is something that can not be resolved in any system like Ripple or otherwise, see MtGox or inputs.io or pirateat40 or mybitcoins or ... - you will always have to trust someone holding your funds in escrow at least to a certain point and it is up to you to ask for things that would make it easier for you to trust someone (e.g. audits, open book accounting...).

[NWO]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

If a completely anonymous stranger wanted to borrow 1 BTC from you, would you trust him?

With enough collateral, yes.
ps. Do you think your comment answered his point?

However, in this context we are not talking about collateral, therefore your comment is void. I am merely stating that you would only extend trust on Ripple to someone you would trust in real life (bank, family, friends etc).

You do realize that you are merely trading IOU's on centralized bitcoin exchanges right? Right!?

[NWO]

I see Ripple also tried their own quasi-mining attempt with the Computing for Good project.  But like everything else they do, it fails before it even gets off the ground.

What are you talking about? It has been off the ground for months, it only got temporarily halted because a) the distribution was not fair b) IBM revamped the website which messed with RippleLab's code

We've got ourselves another Bitcoin retard!

[NWO]

Call it "escrowed funds" then?

"Bank note" or "balance" might also be correct terms, in the end it is not strictly defined by the network though what your RippleState entries (the internal name for trust lines) reflect - they can be debt, money, time, goods...

All Bitcoin exchanges (even localbitcoins with their escrow system) use strictly IOUs, not "real" Bitcoins by the way.

It's been a long time since I've even looked at Ripple so forgive me if things have changed but one of the big issues to me is that all of the IOUs are treated similarly.  TradeFortress proved this a while back, has this been addressed?  Essentially people lost their Bitstamp IOUs for the bogus TF IOUs.  So long as you trust both parties, the IOUs are interchangeable.  It just seems like another way for people to get scammed.

If a completely anonymous stranger wanted to borrow 1 BTC from you, would you trust him?

Nope.  But if a completely anonymous stranger wanted to give me 1 BTC, I'd gladly let him.  That's the problem to me, TF was giving away IOUs, which shouldn't be able to come back and hurt the holder of said IOU.  But they were hurt due to the interchangeability between IOUs.  

If someone gives you an IOU and fails to pay, that's the counterparty risk.  But to intermingle IOUs between multiple issuers makes everything opaque and near impossible to assess risk.

So if someone came up to you and said "Yeah yo man, I'm scam tagged TradeFortrizzle. I just need yo to trust me for 1 BTC and I will give you 1 BTC for FREE dawggg. Yes FREE, don't miss this opportunity. Call 123I'MGOINGTOSCAMYOU for your FREE (no strings attached) BTC. Because I have loads of free BTC from inputs.io dawgg".

Would you not be suspicious?

Or do you not get Chinese gangsters who live in Sydney Australia offering to grow your penis by 14" with a new secret Chinese herb? Or the free $1,000,000 because you were the 10,000th visitor to a website?

Moral of the story

Use your brain. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This also applies to crypto.

Welcome to the internet.

[mmeijeri]

Yes, this has been addressed, new trust lines are created with the "No Rippling" flag enabled by default in the official client

Speaking of which, do you know why the meaning of the no rippling flag was changed? Previously it meant "don't ripple out through this line", but now it means "don't ripple out through this line from another line with the flag set or vice versa".

[Sukrim]

Yes, this has been addressed, new trust lines are created with the "No Rippling" flag enabled by default in the official client

Speaking of which, do you know why the meaning of the no rippling flag was changed? Previously it meant "don't ripple out through this line", but now it means "don't ripple out through this line from another line with the flag set or vice versa".

https://ripple.com/wiki/No_Ripple unfortunately gives no reasoning.

Maybe ask this at the Ripple forums, I guess there might have been some way to loophole the system in some edge cases otherwise. I didn't really think or research a lot about this functionality though, sorry.

[jabo38]

Right now as a system, bitcoin is better because it is accepted by more merchants and has been around longer and despite its flaws is trusted better.

Ripple has been designed with a lot more reflection on what bitcoin could have been.  It is not perfect and right now isn't all that userful, but it is a far more robust and clean platform.  Ripple is trying to get big business and major banks behind it.  If it does this, it will very quickly over take bitcoin because at that point it will do everything bitcoin does and more and will people will be able to use bitcoin within the Ripple system.  This is all IF IF IF Ripple can get its support of major institutions and banks.  It seems to me that they have something to gain, once many other banks are on board, but nobody wants to be first to something like this.  It is only valuable with many players.  It is a good ole catch 22.  It will only work if it has people and then it will be valuable, but nobody wants to be apart of it if it has no value and no outside support.  

There will be other competitors too, as others have mentioned NXT or Etherium, both of which have their pluses and minuses.  Maybe Bitshares or CounterParty.  One thing is clear to me, in the coming years Bitcoin will be a gold standard for the 2.0s platforms.  Sooner or later a 2.0 will be way more powerful though.  Too many things to know for sure.  A major mover with the right backing can still win this.