XRP & the FinCEN Decision [WAS: modeling wallets]

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.

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>
>>
>
>


--