Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

re: Ripple.  this says it all:

so IT IS possible for them to create more ripples, isn't it?

Well, right now OpenCoin could do whatever it wants, though that would be a pretty self-destructive thing to do. Once the system is decentralized, it would be equivalent to Bitcoin people agreeing to change the block reward. Can anyone 100% guarantee it won't happen? No. Is it likely to happen? Not at all, not unless something truly awful would happen if it wasn't changed.

For example, one could imagine in the far future if XRP are so scarce that their divisibility is a problem, there could be an agreement to multiply all XRP values by 1,000 to restore divisibility. This is at least sort of creating XRP. (And one can imagine this same thing happening for Bitcoins.)

i respect Joel for his technical expertise, but in this situation, he's gone off the deep end.

OpenCoin is most likely a few guys headed up by Jed.  these are the ones you have to trust not to issue more XRP's.   that is quite unlike Bitcoin where you'd have to get the consensus of the majority of participants in the system and then even that would be hard.  we're talking probably hundreds of thousands of ppl at this point.  no, the few core devs we have for Bitcoin are not the functional equivalent to the OpenCoin team.  by holding back 50B XRP's, OpenCoin has a vested interest in doing whatever it takes to keep Ripple going and it sounds like have that power to issue more XRP's to dilute their value.

here's something i haven't heard mentioned yet; Jed McCaleb sold MtGox right before it's meteoric rise to become arguably the most successful Bitcoin business (certainly the most critical) in the ecosystem.  i remember talking to Jed on the phone around March-April 2011 about why he did that.  he said he didn't have the technical ability to secure MtGox's trading system.  that's a respectable answer.  but otoh, he could've had the vision to go out and hire the expertise needed to do just that.  he didn't.  now Mark Karpeles is the one making all the money.   hmmmm.....

[Technomage]

As far as I know, the currency Ripple uses, ripples, or XRP, is not actually the point. It's a mechanism to stop people from spamming the network. It exists only to create some sort of cost for using Ripple. They aren't especially scarce, or going to be worth much, but that is actually a good thing.

The actual point is that it allows sending any currency as IOU's based on what kind of trust people give one another. The XRP's only exist so that one has to accompany these IOU-transfers with XRP's so that the network can't be spammed.

The Ripple concept is fairly sound, it's just very different to Bitcoin. It's not a direct competitor, it's a system that will complement Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

the whole concept is based on counter-party risk.  don't we have plenty of examples where that doesn't work when it comes to value transfer services?

it really does remind me of the derivatives market where you have this huge interconnected web of OTC contracts where if one entity can't perform there can be a cascade of failures.  very little, if any, due diligence goes towards determining the ability of counterparties to perform in this situation.  i think the same goes for Ripple.

the Gateways are major points of potential failure.  all you have as security is that somehow you're supposed to trust these guys.  i really can't understand how you can say the system is sound when we only have a rough outline of how the system works.  there are precious few details and we haven't been able to inspect the code.

so if the XRP's are not expected to increase in value, why is it that this is exactly what expectations i'm hearing from ppl who are rushing to get their hands on them?  also giving them out for free encourages one to just hoard them in case they do skyrocket in value.  after all, they didn't cost them anything.  some Bitcoin miners otoh have to sell mined Bitcoins to pay for the costs of mining or the work they've performed.  this encourages dissemination of the units.

i also think the resentment towards XRP "early adopters" who got them for free as a handout based on putting their address into a thread will garner lots more resentment from later adopters than one realizes.  it's a ponzi.

how do the validators get paid?  what incentives do they have to set up servers and pay the costs?  don't they, as well as OpenCoin, represent focal points of failure?  the entire system depends on them.

contrast this with Bitcoin.  the source code was available from day 1.  one could conceptually connect the dots behind how the system works immediately if you took the time.  i honestly cannot say the same thing for Ripple.

[cypherdoc]

so if XRP's are not expected to increase in value much, why are the Founders/OpenCoin holding back 50B of them that they've created out of thin air?

on top of that, what if XRP's just happened to increase in value 100x?  wouldn't they be tempted to dump them out in the open market to cash in?

[molecular]

the whole concept is based on counter-party risk.  don't we have plenty of examples where that doesn't work when it comes to value transfer services?

it really does remind me of the derivatives market where you have this huge interconnected web of OTC contracts where if one entity can't perform there can be a cascade of failures.  very little, if any, due diligence goes towards determining the ability of counterparties to perform in this situation.  i think the same goes for Ripple.

the Gateways are major points of potential failure.  all you have as security is that somehow you're supposed to trust these guys.  i really can't understand how you can say the system is sound when we only have a rough outline of how the system works.  there are precious few details and we haven't been able to inspect the code.

I haven't really made up my mind about the XRP. But assume for a second this is really just for spam-prevention. Your concerns (mainly about 3rd party risk) are then of course still valid. However they don't weight very heavily in my view, because I would only ever put money I would want to spend soon into the ripple network and keep my "money" in bitcoin and other hard assets.

Bitcoin is the vault, ripple is the shopping wallet.

Now, I'm really new to ripple myself and haven't gotten my hands dirty enough to build an opnion and I know JoelKatz says (and he doesn't seem to be alone in that veiw) that it's a very long shot, but ripple could change the way we think about money and make fiat and even bitcoin obsolete at some point. I highly respect Joels opinons on other issues so I value what he says about ripple highly, too. So I'm not really sure wether I will keep the bolded view above which I currently hold.

Any which way, I think we should give ripple a chance and I will be checking it out thoroughly over time.

Of course in the case XRP will become valuable and the "founders/devs" are aware of this and are just trying to cloud that fact (XRP == reserve currency, "stock" in ripple, "the last currency" or whatever) the situation is indeed much worse than with bitcoin and its early adopters... (even if 10,000 people receive 50,000 XRP through giveaways, opencoin still holds 79.5% and the devs 20% of XRP) so it is absolutely imperative we conclusively answer this question before the masses adopt XRP. This would be an extremely long, well-thought-out and skillfully executed con operation.

My gut says its not the case.

As for cypherdocs question why they would withhold so much ripple: well, if they indeed can't increase the XRP supply and plan to have ripple used by the whole world at some point, then they'll need a lot of the stuff to be able to give every new user enough to be able to run a wallet.

[cypherdoc]

the whole concept is based on counter-party risk.  don't we have plenty of examples where that doesn't work when it comes to value transfer services?

it really does remind me of the derivatives market where you have this huge interconnected web of OTC contracts where if one entity can't perform there can be a cascade of failures.  very little, if any, due diligence goes towards determining the ability of counterparties to perform in this situation.  i think the same goes for Ripple.

the Gateways are major points of potential failure.  all you have as security is that somehow you're supposed to trust these guys.  i really can't understand how you can say the system is sound when we only have a rough outline of how the system works.  there are precious few details and we haven't been able to inspect the code.

I haven't really made up my mind about the XRP. But assume for a second this is really just for spam-prevention. Your concerns (mainly about 3rd party risk) are then of course still valid. However they don't weight very heavily in my view, because I would only ever put money I would want to spend soon into the ripple network and keep my "money" in bitcoin and other hard assets.

Bitcoin is the vault, ripple is the shopping wallet.

Now, I'm really new to ripple myself and haven't gotten my hands dirty enough to build an opnion and I know JoelKatz says (and he doesn't seem to be alone in that veiw) that it's a very long shot, but ripple could change the way we think about money and make fiat and even bitcoin obsolete at some point. I highly respect Joels opinons on other issues so I value what he says about ripple highly, too. So I'm not really sure wether I will keep the bolded view above which I currently hold.

Any which way, I think we should give ripple a chance and I will be checking it out thoroughly over time.

Of course in the case XRP will become valuable and the "founders/devs" are aware of this and are just trying to cloud that fact (XRP == reserve currency, "stock" in ripple, "the last currency" or whatever) the situation is indeed much worse than with bitcoin and its early adopters... (even if 10,000 people receive 50,000 XRP through giveaways, opencoin still holds 79.5% and the devs 20% of XRP) so it is absolutely imperative we conclusively answer this question before the masses adopt XRP. This would be an extremely long, well-thought-out and skillfully executed con operation.

My gut says its not the case.

As for cypherdocs question why they would withhold so much ripple: well, if they indeed can't increase the XRP supply and plan to have ripple used by the whole world at some point, then they'll need a lot of the stuff to be able to give every new user enough to be able to run a wallet.

you mean Joel didn't send you the memo?  when he releases those 50B XRP's, we've agreed they will come thru me @ no charge.  then, i get to mark them up to whatever price i want before selling them to you.  we're buddies.

[cypherdoc]

Future of Canadian Venture Exchange Shaky

"The only way gold goes higher is if we get a precipitous drop in the USD".

Note:  it ain't happening.

[miscreanity]

look how much push back ppl have around here about "early adopter" advantage even though that's a myth about Bitcoin.

There is an advantage to being an early Bitcoin adopter, or you and I wouldn't be here. It is not a myth, only a perspective that believes such a circumstance to be "unfair". That goes for participating in anything successful.

Ask yourself this: do you think it unfair that Satoshi may hold 1mm+ bitcoins? Does knowing who holds a lot of wealth make that knowledge less palatable?

for Ripple, its not a myth.  its a fact.  what OpenCoin is trying to do is create a new currency w/o anybody doing any work and based on trust.  they're handing them out for free which is what they'll be worth in the end; nothing.

So no work has been done to construct an incentive structure built around an open protocol? Nor has any work been done to create a uniform, secure web interface?

nobody talks about the fees that they will be charging everyone to ensure "security".  what they mean is their security based on their own principles.  if they have to issue a bunch more XRP's to keep it all going, i'm sure they won't hesitate.  the whole system actually reminds me of the derivatives market.  it's based on trust btwn ppl in this interconnecting web of actors.  everything's fine when it's going well but if a crisis hits, trust will evaporate instantly.

The issues related to Bitcoin blockchain dusting would plague Ripple without some form of expense involved with transfers; it is not security based on arbitrary principles.

OpenCoin can only issue more XRP by changing the protocol. Once a critical mass of nodes exist, it will be virtually impossible to simply issue more. The only difference between Bitcoin and Ripple in that sense is that the network agrees on whom the recipient of funds are through consensus. After a majority of funds have been distributed, there won't be any need for that mechanism; Bitcoin ingeniously makes double use of that feature, allowing market forces to shift the incentive from block reward to transaction fees.

Ripple is a good platform for derivatives. This doesn't mean it's pointless, though. What it does is create a common protocol for everyone, not just major clearing houses. If Bitcoin is like having a bank in your mobile, Ripple is like having a COMEX or LCH in your mobile.

There are certain distinct, subtle differences between Bitcoin and Ripple. While XRP could conceivably make Bitcoin largely redundant, the active nature of Bitcoin's transaction verification process offers functionality that might not be possible with Ripple. One instance where Bitcoin and Ripple ideally interact is with Bitcoin as a reserve - Ripple acts as the basis of a credit system; if that results in restricted XRP supply accessibility, Bitcoin can be used as a settlement mechanism. Because both are closed systems interacting with each other, there is a limit to the extent of structural dislocation. Of course, we still need to see the Ripple server source, but as long as the protocol can be adhered to in practice rather than theory... it'll be an incredible development.

As for why so much is being held in reserve - remember 2011? Bitcoin in the hands of pure market forces was hit by sheer buying with no selling. It was no surprise that a spike and crash would occur. How can this be prevented? Continuous selling pressure to temper volatility. There would be an increasing amount of supply necessary to maintain steady growth, and with sufficient adoption, OpenCoin would eventually be unable to manage that kind of effort - very similar to how the central bank and BIS management of gold has manifested.

Keep in mind that in order for OpenCoin to have an asset actually worth holding, it must be used and valuable on a somewhat wide scale. Sure, that could be accomplished through fraud, but since the protocol is supported through distributed nodes, the network will take on a life of its own and no longer even be possible as a fraudulent endeavour.

[miscreanity]

so if the XRP's are not expected to increase in value, why is it that this is exactly what expectations i'm hearing from ppl who are rushing to get their hands on them?  also giving them out for free encourages one to just hoard them in case they do skyrocket in value.  after all, they didn't cost them anything.  some Bitcoin miners otoh have to sell mined Bitcoins to pay for the costs of mining or the work they've performed.  this encourages dissemination of the units.

Expectations don't necessarily translate into reality, and I don't expect them to here. Adoption will be the major driving factor here, as it is with Bitcoin. The difference is that without market competition for limited supply, the value is unlikely to rise much until the available units have been distributed and a steady turnover volume has been achieved. It's like try to keep a 100m rope taught with only a 1m arm span.

it's a ponzi.

It's only a Ponzi if the source code isn't released.

how do the validators get paid?  what incentives do they have to set up servers and pay the costs?  don't they, as well as OpenCoin, represent focal points of failure?  the entire system depends on them.

Validators don't get paid. Each time a transaction occurs, the XRP used to facilitate the respective transfer is debited from the 100,000,000,000 unit ledger, making all remaining XRP worth slightly more than they were in relation to the entire supply.

For example, a transaction occurs and now there are 99,999,999,999 units remaining. Let's say that there are 80,000,000,000 XRP left after two years. The residual could conceivably be worth ~20% more than if there were 100,000,000,000 of them, because they're becoming more scarce. However, it's probable that there will be an extended delay in value increase due to the sheer volume of supply. For there to be real constraints on the units available, there would have to be a lot of transactions occurring. That means a lot of users.

Value will only rise when that supply limit becomes a practical constraint. However, like bitcoins, ripples are arbitrarily divisible. Therefore, the supply constraints will be balanced out to a large degree by progressively lower XRP-valued transfer costs. In effect, the BTC cost to conduct a Ripple transaction might never change! It would only change in terms of XRP. In other words, if your wealth is within the Ripple system, it will only appreciate if it remains within that system. Otherwise, it will be essentially the same value as when it entered, at least in terms of XRP valuation.

Bitcoin and Ripple divisibility:

Bitcoin's supply is infinitely expandable; Ripple's supply is infinitely renewable.

If Ripple becomes such a dominant network that it covers the vast majority of known financial structures, it is possible that XRP holders could be well rewarded in relation to other asset classes. That's a ways off, though. For now, as the situation exists, Bitcoin is the cryptocurrency; it will act as the means of exchange, metric of value, and store of value. Ripple is primarily suited as a means of exchange; if it remains small, it could become a MoV and SoV; if it becomes large, it would primarily be a MoE and MoV, but not a strong SoV.

contrast this with Bitcoin.  the source code was available from day 1.  one could conceptually connect the dots behind how the system works immediately if you took the time.  i honestly cannot say the same thing for Ripple.

Yes, and how long was Bitcoin in development? This iteration of Ripple has been in the works only for a few months, with good results so far. Until the source is released, skepticism is normal, but don't fall into the trap many goldbugs did when first learning of Bitcoin.

[miscreanity]

"The only way gold goes higher is if we get a precipitous drop in the USD".

Note:  it ain't happening.

It already is. Relative value among currencies masks this.

The US does not have sufficient internal demand to support its own economy. If the dollar rises, it becomes expensive to foreign investment. Remember buy low, sell high? The US is currently the greatest tax shelter in the world... if you're not a US citizen.

Let's put it another way - if the world is going to flock to Bitcoin, then fiat currencies will bear the brunt of any damage, especially the USD. The reality is that gold is being sought far more than cryptocurrencies (for now).

Guess who's on the other side of the massive short contracts below? That's right, your favorite neighborhood bullion bank!

[oakpacific]

I know very little about Ripple, but if the subprime crisis has told us anything, it's that any model which attempts to evaluate the risk/trust as a single number is very likely to fail disastrously.

[cypherdoc]

The Daaash for Digital Caaash!!!   

[cypherdoc]

I know very little about Ripple, but if the subprime crisis has told us anything, it's that any model which attempts to evaluate the risk/trust as a single number is very likely to fail disastrously.

That's all you really need to know.

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

[miscreanity]

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

Ripple doesn't make anyone more or less trustworthy. One of its primary functions is to level the playing field currently dominated by banks.

What Ripple does in terms of evaluating trust is offer a transparent record that  is resistant to manipulation. It creates an environment where there is a strong incentive to be responsible.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions that attack, ask questions to learn

[oakpacific]

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

Ripple doesn't make anyone more or less trustworthy. One of its primary functions is to level the playing field currently dominated by banks.

What Ripple does in terms of evaluating trust is offer a transparent record that  is resistant to manipulation. It creates an environment where there is a strong incentive to be responsible.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions that attack, ask questions to learn

Well, just one simple question, how do I figure out my level of trust of Carol if, let's say, my level of trust of Bob is 50, and Bob's level of trust of Carol is 50, yet I don't know anything about Carol at all? If I can only issue and receive IOUs from people I personally know, then perhaps I don't need Ripple IOUs at all, as we can already do things with pen and paper, and they are actually more versatile in this aspect.

[molecular]

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

Ripple doesn't make anyone more or less trustworthy. One of its primary functions is to level the playing field currently dominated by banks.

What Ripple does in terms of evaluating trust is offer a transparent record that  is resistant to manipulation. It creates an environment where there is a strong incentive to be responsible.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions that attack, ask questions to learn

Well, just one simple question, how do I figure out my level of trust of Carol if, let's say, my level of trust of Bob is 50, and Bob's level of trust of Carol is 50, yet I don't know anything about Carol at all? If I can only issue and receive IOUs from people I personally know, then perhaps I don't need Ripple IOUs at all, as we can already do things with pen and paper, and they are actually more versatile in this aspect.

Bob can exhange the Carol IOUs to Bob IOUs (Ripple should do this automagically). That's how carol can give you money without you needing to trust her directly. The resulting effect will be that Bob owns some Carol IOUs and you own some Bob IOUs. Noone trust constraint were violated and all is fine.

Above is how it could work in a "personal banking" environment. Currently ripple devs seem keen to point out that it would make more sense if everyone just trusted bitstamp and/or weexchange.

[oakpacific]

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

Ripple doesn't make anyone more or less trustworthy. One of its primary functions is to level the playing field currently dominated by banks.

What Ripple does in terms of evaluating trust is offer a transparent record that  is resistant to manipulation. It creates an environment where there is a strong incentive to be responsible.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions that attack, ask questions to learn

Well, just one simple question, how do I figure out my level of trust of Carol if, let's say, my level of trust of Bob is 50, and Bob's level of trust of Carol is 50, yet I don't know anything about Carol at all? If I can only issue and receive IOUs from people I personally know, then perhaps I don't need Ripple IOUs at all, as we can already do things with pen and paper, and they are actually more versatile in this aspect.

Bob can exhange the Carol IOUs to Bob IOUs (Ripple should do this automagically). That's how carol can give you money without you needing to trust her directly. The resulting effect will be that Bob owns some Carol IOUs and you own some Bob IOUs. Noone trust constraint were violated and all is fine.

Above is how it could work in a "personal banking" environment. Currently ripple devs seem keen to point out that it would make more sense if everyone just trusted bitstamp and/or weexchange.

What do you mean by "automagically"? In what way is it automatic/automagic? Do I need to get Bob's explicit, informed approval when I lend money to Carol?  And what would happen if Carol defaults? Thanks.

[molecular]

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

Ripple doesn't make anyone more or less trustworthy. One of its primary functions is to level the playing field currently dominated by banks.

What Ripple does in terms of evaluating trust is offer a transparent record that  is resistant to manipulation. It creates an environment where there is a strong incentive to be responsible.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions that attack, ask questions to learn

Well, just one simple question, how do I figure out my level of trust of Carol if, let's say, my level of trust of Bob is 50, and Bob's level of trust of Carol is 50, yet I don't know anything about Carol at all? If I can only issue and receive IOUs from people I personally know, then perhaps I don't need Ripple IOUs at all, as we can already do things with pen and paper, and they are actually more versatile in this aspect.

Bob can exhange the Carol IOUs to Bob IOUs (Ripple should do this automagically). That's how carol can give you money without you needing to trust her directly. The resulting effect will be that Bob owns some Carol IOUs and you own some Bob IOUs. Noone trust constraint were violated and all is fine.

Above is how it could work in a "personal banking" environment. Currently ripple devs seem keen to point out that it would make more sense if everyone just trusted bitstamp and/or weexchange.

What do you mean by "automagically"? In what way is it automatic/automagic? Do I need to get Bob's explicit, informed approval when I lend money to Carol?  And what would happen if Carol defaults? Thanks.

By "automagically" I mean that ripple searches for "trust paths" to make Carols payment happen. In this case the path involves Bob.

I'm no expert on ripple, but the way I understand it explicit approval from Bob is not needed. He implicitly agrees to this by trusting Carol. In case of a Carol default, you still own Bobs IOUs, he has to deal with the Carol default, because he owns her debt.

[oakpacific]

Let's make it even simpler.   How many of you have ever felt betrayed by a brother,  sister,  or even parent?

Ripple doesn't make anyone more or less trustworthy. One of its primary functions is to level the playing field currently dominated by banks.

What Ripple does in terms of evaluating trust is offer a transparent record that  is resistant to manipulation. It creates an environment where there is a strong incentive to be responsible.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions that attack, ask questions to learn

Well, just one simple question, how do I figure out my level of trust of Carol if, let's say, my level of trust of Bob is 50, and Bob's level of trust of Carol is 50, yet I don't know anything about Carol at all? If I can only issue and receive IOUs from people I personally know, then perhaps I don't need Ripple IOUs at all, as we can already do things with pen and paper, and they are actually more versatile in this aspect.

Bob can exhange the Carol IOUs to Bob IOUs (Ripple should do this automagically). That's how carol can give you money without you needing to trust her directly. The resulting effect will be that Bob owns some Carol IOUs and you own some Bob IOUs. Noone trust constraint were violated and all is fine.

Above is how it could work in a "personal banking" environment. Currently ripple devs seem keen to point out that it would make more sense if everyone just trusted bitstamp and/or weexchange.

What do you mean by "automagically"? In what way is it automatic/automagic? Do I need to get Bob's explicit, informed approval when I lend money to Carol?  And what would happen if Carol defaults? Thanks.

By "automagically" I mean that ripple searches for "trust paths" to make Carols payment happen. In this case the path involves Bob.

I'm no expert on ripple, but the way I understand it explicit approval from Bob is not needed. He implicitly agrees to this by trusting Carol. In case of a Carol default, you still own Bobs IOUs, he has to deal with the Carol default, because he owns her debt.

Can you get more than one intermediary in the path? And can you not later invalidate a payment which you implicitly approved? If that's the case I strongly suspect the robustness of such a system, e.g., if someone happens to be the junction point of a lot of trust paths, and suddenly accumulating a large amount of IOUs without his knowledge(it could happen if the nodes next to you happen to be a little bit better connected than average, and so are their extended ones, and so forth), his default could cause huge problems. Of course allow the setting of a threshold debt value could be very helpful, but a robust network should in the first place be designed to avoid single points of failure/negligence.

Besides, I don't think such IOUs are as versatile as their real world counterpart, with which you can specify under what conditions/when the debt is to be repaid, and under what conditions the repayment could be delayed, which are all legally enforceable.

[cypherdoc]

I find it very hard to trust anyone on the Internet, esp an exchange! Either I fail to understand ripple or I'm very shocked so many people are for this.

i'm shocked too given how few specifics of how the system is actually going to work are available.  the code is not even available for inspection.