Re: XRP

Comments about XRP under the sub-heading "Areas of Concern":
http://www.coindesk.com/report-conflict-ripple-labs-consensus-protocol/

The original R3 CEV report seems to be unavailable... it used to be here:
http://r3cev.com/2014/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Ripple_Paper_Public.pdf

Anyone here have a copy?

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423>

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 17 May 2015 at 15:51, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>
>> RE: "an anti spam mechanism"
>>
>> Understood. But that's a different use case.
>>
>> XRP has also harnessed as a way to raise funds for R&D.
>>
>> Giving XRP the job of handling three very different uses cases seems
>> (seemed) clever, but that comes with risks.
>>
>
> That's a great break down.  IMHO when creating a money system overloading
> the uses seems to make it easier to bring to market.
>
> I guess the original stated purpose was as an anti spam technology, hence
> of theoretical value.
>
> In the case of XRP the distribution did seem to be problematic.
>
>
>>
>> Joseph Potvin
>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>
>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 May 2015 at 14:12, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RE: "FinCEN and Department of Justice Settle Anti-Money Laundering
>>>> Charges Against Crypto-Currency Company Ripple Labs"
>>>>
>>>> Below for reference I forward two of my messages to this list from 18
>>>> November, 2013 and 4 June 2014, below. In particular:
>>>>
>>>> 18 November, 2013: "Why permit the holding of XRPs at all? In the grand
>>>> scheme of things, what's the value added from their persistence?"
>>>>
>>>> 4 June 2014: "BTC is token-based. XRP is token-based. I came to the
>>>> conclusion that the only legitimate "value" of 1 BTC is zero. BTC is merely
>>>> the message-bearing token, it's not an instantiation of "the value"."
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that if RippleLabs had treated XRP as a zero-value transitory
>>>> token with no persistence, it would not have violated the law that it has
>>>> now been found to violate. And yet it would have been able to support the
>>>> algorithmic functions that Ripple requires.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure if this is still on topic, or it may be better to start a new
>>> thread.  But
>>>
>>> These tokens prevent spamming the network,  Proof of work was originally
>>> devised as an anti spam mechanism e.g. for email.  I think spam assassin
>>> does use it in this way.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:42 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Ripple
>>>> To: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
>>>> Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <
>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RE: Ripple Labs isn't playing a hoarding game but
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any opinion on that at this point, but some people think
>>>> it is: http://ripplescam.org/  (Sorry if posting that link seems
>>>> aggressive. That's not my intent. It's out there and shows up in searches,
>>>> so I'm just being forthcoming.)
>>>>
>>>> RE: "The value of 1 XRP matters to currency traders, Ripple Labs, and
>>>> anyone else holding XRP as an asset. "
>>>>
>>>> That seems entirely unnecessary to me, and a "bug" in the current
>>>> business architecture of Ripple. Why permit the holding of XRPs at all? In
>>>> the grand scheme of things, what's the value added from their persistence?
>>>> I still advocate for 1 XRP = 1 banana, compared with the XRP's current
>>>> design. (To see where I'm actually coming from, see:
>>>> http://www.bengrahaminvesting.ca/Outreach/2009_Symposium.htm and
>>>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/commodities-as-a-global-currency/article1346127/
>>>> ...although even more I prefer an "Earth Reserve" base, which I and some
>>>> colleagues are working on.)  Meanwhile the private consortium aspect of The
>>>> Fed is hardly something to be replicated -- the more successful Ripple
>>>> becomes, the more suspicion and "divergent" interests it will attract. It
>>>> fear it would become the monetary instantiation of The Peter Principle.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the value of a BTC or an XRP is nothing more than brand
>>>> loyalty, what the accountants call the value of "goodwill", since any
>>>> number of parallel currencies just like them can be created.
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>>>> Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:45 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: P2P Payment technologies & info (WAS Re: Is payment
>>>> "timeliness" addressed in our work yet?)
>>>> To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave,
>>>>
>>>> For further reflection, see work by Geoffrey Ingham, since it matters
>>>> "what" we're speaking about sending around when discussing a payments
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-074560997X,subjectCd-EC06.html
>>>>
>>>> http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/601wray/Ingham_ontology%20of%20Money.pdf
>>>> http://www.twill.info/the-ontology-of-money/
>>>> http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137302953.0007
>>>> Sample chapter http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/9781137302946.pdf (The
>>>> book was edited by my former thesis supervisor Geoff Harcourt. After the
>>>> Paris workshop in April I travelled over to Cambridge UK to discuss some of
>>>> the issues of payment with Ingham.
>>>>
>>>> The link I provided in another thread to an UNCITRAL document is well
>>>> worth reading, to consider the significance of registry-based versus
>>>> token-based ways of sending around the quantified entitlements and
>>>> obligations that Ingham speaks of:
>>>> http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_4/wp_119_e.pdf
>>>>
>>>> For example, ACH (Automated Clearing House) is registry-based. BTC is
>>>> token-based. XRP is token-based.
>>>>
>>>> I came to the conclusion that the only legitimate "value" of 1 BTC is
>>>> zero. BTC is merely the message-bearing token, it's not an instantiation of
>>>> "the value". It's limited supply is meaningless. For this reason I agree
>>>> with the determination of courts in Finland, China and elsewhere that BTC
>>>> is a digital commodity, a sort of electronic vehicle to transport
>>>> information about the quantified entitlements and obligations that Ingham
>>>> speaks of. A unit of BTC is therefore properly worth no more than the
>>>> scanned image of a paper cheque. That scanned image is worth zero, and
>>>> cannot be logically conflated with the value being exchanged.
>>>>
>>>> Some consider these matters "too academic". My response is that if what
>>>> we were talking about was the development of standard specifications for
>>>> international shipping containers, it would not be "too academic" to
>>>> determine whether these containers had to be suitable to ship things like
>>>> fresh tomatoes as well as steel bars.  It matters just as much what this
>>>> "web payments" system is supposed to be shipping around.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Timothy Holborn <
>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.paymentlawadvisor.com/2015/05/12/fincen-and-department-of-justice-settle-anti-money-laundering-charges-against-crypto-currency-company-ripple-labs/
>>>>>
>>>>> No real different in my world... Perhaps important for operators /
>>>>> users though...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 May 2015 at 9:18 pm, Melvin Carvalho <
>>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 May 2015 at 12:49, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RE: "Galbraith ... says it's not important in the grand scheme of
>>>>>>> things"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That part was the comment from the regulator.  The bit in quotes was
>>>>>> galbraith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By all means we could spend time trying to nail down a definition of
>>>>>> money.  However, I've seen such discussions in the past, go on for 100s of
>>>>>> hours and not make progress, so bear in mind that it may not be the most
>>>>>> productive use of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By using URIs to name things, it tends to be less restrictive.
>>>>>> Anything that can be named can be modeled.  They are just variable names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we're not discussing the "grand scheme of things" here. We're
>>>>>>> discussing technical informatics specifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the grand scheme of things, when the technical informatics specifications
>>>>>>> in the domain of money & payment inherit deep architecture flaws (such as
>>>>>>> ontological confusion) then the critical systems put in place inevitably
>>>>>>> need to be sustained here and there with ad hoc work-arounds. Since 2007
>>>>>>> we've all been witness to quite a few ad hoc work-arounds which
>>>>>>> have no internal system logic, but which are driven by the need to prevent
>>>>>>> the global money & payment "kernel" from crashing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>>>>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17 May 2015 at 04:50, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're going to need to point to a general definition of "money"
>>>>>>>>> if you want to arrive at a general definition of a class of thing which
>>>>>>>>> receives, contains and dispatches it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But let me ask: Do you consider "money" to be an entity, or a
>>>>>>>>> relationship?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've spoken to regulators about this.  One that I trust pointed me
>>>>>>>> to Galbraith:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Galbraith doesn't really give a hard definition because he says
>>>>>>>> it's not important in the grand scheme of things... "The reader should
>>>>>>>> proceed in these pages in the knowledge that money is nothing more
>>>>>>>> or less than what he or she always thought it was - what is
>>>>>>>> commonly offered or received for the purchase or sale of goods, services or
>>>>>>>> other things."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the context of IT architecture, the class Wallet is not a
>>>>>>>>> container "of" money. It's a container of information "about" money. This
>>>>>>>>> is because the class Money is not an entity, it's a relationship. That's a
>>>>>>>>> rather critical difference to anyone's wallet ER diagram, certainly.
>>>>>>>>> (See: "Money is a Social Relation
>>>>>>>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/29769872?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21106849248993
>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Money (the relation) might be stored with a tangible, say like
>>>>>>>>> gold. Aside from looking nice, gold serves as a sort of solid metal
>>>>>>>>> "wallet". Money (the relation) might otherwise be stored with a tangible
>>>>>>>>> like Bitcoin -- most will be surprised that I call it a tangible, but the
>>>>>>>>> simple fact is that it requires tangible human effort, computing resources
>>>>>>>>> and electrical energy to "mine" and then to manage those units. People may
>>>>>>>>> say "gold is money" or "bitcoin is money" but that's just colloquial loose
>>>>>>>>> language. A quanity of Gold, or a Bitcoin, are entities. The connection
>>>>>>>>> with various useful things you can exchange for a certain amount of gold or
>>>>>>>>> of Bitcoin express the relationship. That relationship can stay the exactly
>>>>>>>>> same while the entity varies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>>>>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>>>>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>>>>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>>>>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Manu Sporny <
>>>>>>>>> msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/16/2015 08:17 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > "A wallet is a container of money"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Web Payments IG started out talking about "digital wallets"
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> quickly moved away from the idea since a "digital wallet" can
>>>>>>>>>> hold many
>>>>>>>>>> other things as Tim and Jorge point out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There seems to be some sort of consensus around the concept of an
>>>>>>>>>> 'account' and a 'ledger'. Those terms aren't as accessible to most
>>>>>>>>>> people was 'wallet', but it may be the right way to model these
>>>>>>>>>> sorts of
>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Alice> <com:account> <Alice:#account1>
>>>>>>>>>> <Alice:#account1> <com:currency> "USD".
>>>>>>>>>> <Alice:#account1> <rdfs:label> "Party Money".
>>>>>>>>>> <Alice:#account1> <com:ledger> <Alice:#ledger1>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- manu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu
>>>>>>>>>> Sporny)
>>>>>>>>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
>>>>>>>>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <819-593-5983>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> <819-593-5983>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>