Re: Stellar launches - Ripple-like decentralized ledger

On 18 February 2016 at 12:30, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> RE: "an open, neutral, cross-ledger interoperability protocol that the
> world can standardize on"
>
> Why not situate that as an IETF RfC?
>

Not sure IETF is the right place for it, that's more lower level.  This is
probably better done on the web.


>
> Joseph Potvin
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18 February 2016 at 08:16, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 February 2016 at 21:00, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 February 2016 at 10:54, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much has changed since August 2014. This is some context from me in my
>>>>> personal capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I now work for Ripple for starters, so I have a far better informed
>>>>> opinion on the motivations for "self-mining" (funding the development of
>>>>> enterprise grade distributed payments software by 80+ world-class engineers
>>>>> for starters) and our relationship with our former co-founder and this
>>>>> settlement than I did in August 2014. Let's just say that there are two
>>>>> sides to every story and leave it at that.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the year and half since this thread began most observers would have
>>>>> noticed Ripple's strategy change to be very focused on cross-border
>>>>> settlement and distributed financial technology as opposed to last mile
>>>>> payments and financial inclusion which appears to be the primary focus of
>>>>> Stellar.
>>>>>
>>>>> I joined Ripple in April 2015 to focus on open payments standards as
>>>>> the company had made the strategic decision that these were crucial to
>>>>> fixing global payments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many misunderstood this to mean Ripple wants to "make the Ripple
>>>>> protocol a global standard" whereas the company had long since acknowledged
>>>>> the scalability challenges with trying to standardize on a single ledger
>>>>> (this was the beginnings of the research that lead to the development of
>>>>> the Interledger Protocol).
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people are coming to that same conclusion now[1] and my hope is
>>>>> that it drives them to support the development of ILP rather than stick
>>>>> with their "one ledger to rule them all" mentality but unfortunately the
>>>>> fact that ILP was invented by Ripple sometimes counts against it among
>>>>> specific communities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the linked article "Technical Roadblock may shatter bitcoin's
>>>> dreams", are you implying that that bitcoin is the "one ledger to rule them
>>>> all" or that something else e.g. ripple, is?  I'll not that this may also
>>>> be considered inflammatory by the "haters" that you mention (of which im
>>>> not one) :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. My point was that no single distributed ledger will ever
>>> handle all of the world's transactions. i.e. The world should not be
>>> standardizing on a single ledger but rather on a protocol for
>>> interoperability between ledgers.
>>>
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out about 2-3 years ago on IRC that ripple's ledger would
>>>> struggle cope with the volume that was out there in terms of orders,
>>>> trades, trust lines and transfers.  That now seems to be the consensus view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that's the consensus view. The Ripple ledger has not
>>> struggled with any of the volume it has had to deal with to date. However,
>>> Ripple have pursued a strategy of using the Ripple ledger for a very
>>> specific purpose (rather than trying to put all of the worlds orders,
>>> trades, trust lines and transfers onto it).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, well transactions are one thing, and orders and markets are a whole
>> other realm especially in the world of high frequency trading.  You'll
>> likely run into a scalability wall if you are on a growth path, so this
>> makes sense.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> To deal with the scalability issue that ALL distributed ledgers face
>>> Ripple has proposed an open, neutral, cross-ledger interoperability
>>> protocol that the world can standardize on.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, love the concept, I think it's on the right lines.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, bitcoin itself does not suffer from the same problem, because
>>>> it does one thing well, which is payments in a zero trust environment (ie
>>>> no built in markets or trading).  Bitcoin is an incredibly sound ledger
>>>> protected by a reconstructible transaction history and the largest
>>>> distributed computing project on the planet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, I don't think that's the consensus view. Bitcoin does have scale
>>> issues which was exactly the finding of the article I linked to. BUT, that
>>> is not to say Bitcoin isn't well suited to dealing with some specific use
>>> cases. As you put it, it does one thing well.
>>>
>>
>> The nice thing about bitcoin is that it hasnt really changed very much.
>> The best thing the devs did was to keep the technology the same.  Having
>> run a fantasy football forum in the past, the first 'commandment' was 'thou
>> shalt not tinker' -- meaning that most people have an insatiable urge to
>> change thing, to improve them, when actually often the original concept was
>> sound.  Bitcoin is quite sound and robust, there was a (imho nefarious)
>> denial of service attack launched on it, by some that were possibly
>> interested in its failure, but it withstood that attack.  Bitcoin is doing
>> just fine.  It has an inbuilt mechanism to scale, namely the fee
>> structure.  As the transactions become more congested (they are not yet at
>> capacity) the market for fees kicks in, which are paid in bitcoin.  Bitcoin
>> you might say is the currency used to make your payment faster.
>>
>> Eventually as the block reward keeps halving every 2 years it has to go
>> this way anyway.  There's some that want to increase the capacity and some
>> that want it to stay the same.  Its contentious because it's a marginal
>> decision, and the decision making process becomes highly scrutinized.
>> Satoshi predicted exactly this.  IMHO all very healthy.  Bitcoin can become
>> the reserve currency of the internet and that's a huge thing that it didnt
>> have before ie settlement in money that is widely accepted by merchants.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There are now a huge variety of architectures and approaches to
>>> distributed ledger systems (Bitcoin and Ripple are just two of them) but
>>> that doesn't mean they are all in competition.
>>>
>>
>> I've spoken to prominent members of the bitcoin community.  IMHO most
>> dont like ripple, tho I wasnt in that camp, I was an early adopter,
>> contributed some code and wrote one of the first explorers.
>>
>> The general feeling was that the ripple ledger was not as sound as
>> bitcoin (that's probably true) and that it was competition at a time when
>> bitcoin wanted to consolidate (probably also true).  I think the best point
>> someone made was that most 'alt' coins didnt offer legitimate innovation
>> but were mainly used for speculation, that's about right.  I do feel ripple
>> offered innovation, though.
>>
>> My biggest issue with ripple was technical, and as an explorer author my
>> question which no one could answer was whether the ledger was sound, ie
>> whether it could be reconstructed from the transactions.  Im unsure it can,
>> in which case the balances are somewhat arbitrary.  I'd like to understand
>> that better.  This is also something I believe Jed raised.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If we can accept that different use cases demand different
>>> characteristics from their payment system and that different architectures
>>> offer different combinations of those desired characteristics then we
>>> should also accept that the world will eventually have a great number of
>>> different distributed (and centralized) ledger systems all operating in
>>> parallel and used for different things.
>>>
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Interledger Protocol proposes a way that this world can still be
>>> highly interoperable and transactions can span multiple ledgers.
>>>
>>
>> I like the concept here.  Im unsure if ILP is the, to use your phrase,
>> "one protocol to rule them all", but im watching the evolution.  I intend
>> to implement a number of inter ledger systems, of which ILP is on my list.
>> I can then compare what works best.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone that considers standardization work to improve interoperability
>>> (like ILP) competitive to their distributed ledger work is clearly taking a
>>> position that their ledger will "rule them all". That was the point of many
>>> of the comments made in the second article.
>>>
>>
>> Got it.  So I think bitcoin is unique in that it is a robust ledger that
>> can act as a central bank for the internet, offer settlement, be
>> reconstructed from its transactions, be widely accepted by merchants in a
>> zero trust environment.  None of its other competitors are anywhere close
>> in comparison, and nothing is remotely on the radar that will challenge it
>> at this time.
>>
>> Communication between ledgers is a great new topic.  But well are we not
>> perhaps falling into the "one protocol to rule them all" trap, unless that
>> protocol is quite low level, e.g. HTTP.  It's interesting, I look forward
>> to the evolution.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As one of my colleagues once said: "Haters gonna hate." As an employee
>>>>> I can confirm that one of the most prized values at Ripple is being
>>>>> constructive (as opposed to intentionally disruptive). There are a lot of
>>>>> people that believe working with, rather than against, the banks pits
>>>>> Ripple as a direct competitor to Bitcoin and other similar technologies but
>>>>> that's certainly not how Ripple views the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has already been pointed[2] out elements of the Bitcoin community
>>>>> may have their own reasons for not supporting an open inter-operability
>>>>> standard but I don't want to be drawn on that. The good news is that often
>>>>> a good explanation if ILP will turn even the most ardent anti-Ripple minds
>>>>> to the fact that ILP is a very good idea and deserves their support.
>>>>>
>>>>> The development of ILP and the promotion of it as a global, neutral,
>>>>> open standard was Ripple's acknowledgement that our ledger will have a
>>>>> specific use case but that the world will ultimately be filled with ledgers
>>>>> (open, closed, distributed, centralized, etc) that all fulfill a specific
>>>>> purpose and that what is required is a way for these to inter-operate.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an ideal world there would be representatives from all of the major
>>>>> ledger vendors (both commercial and FLOSS, including Stellar) in the ILP CG
>>>>> making sure that the protocol evolves in a manner that will ensure their
>>>>> ledger is able to easily implement the necessary functions such as escrow
>>>>> and crypto-conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The good news is that we have over 100 attendees already registered
>>>>> for the ILP workshop next week (40+ in person) from a huge variety of
>>>>> organizations including large silicon valley tech companies, global
>>>>> payments companies, banks, blockchain/crypto start-ups, central banks,
>>>>> universities and more. Ripple engineers are already assisting other
>>>>> organizations to develop their own implementations of ILP so that the
>>>>> protocol becomes a true standard and not just a specification published by
>>>>> a standards body with a single implementer. ILP is gaining traction and we
>>>>> (the ILP community) have an opportunity to be part of something truly
>>>>> game-changing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I sometimes compare ILP and Ripple to SPDY and Google. SPDY/3 was
>>>>> adopted as the first draft of HTTP2 with minor changes but not without some
>>>>> push-back purely based on the fact that it was developed by Google
>>>>> initially who had benefited from having control over a browser and a
>>>>> significant server population.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think what many struggle to reconcile is why a commercial,
>>>>> venture-backed entity like Ripple would be promoting something that could
>>>>> ultimately be used by its competition. I mean, if ILP is an open standard
>>>>> what's stopping other people implementing it and competing with Ripple's
>>>>> commercial products? You could ask the same of the browser vendors at the
>>>>> W3C. They are all co-operating on the development of open standards because
>>>>> they believe they can win customers on their ability to execute. A rising
>>>>> tide raises all ships.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I have been a long time believer in open standards as an
>>>>> enabler of better inter-operability in payments. That's why I started
>>>>> OpenPayee and subsequently joined the Web Payments CG many years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was sheer luck that I crossed paths with Ripple last April just
>>>>> when they were looking for someone to advocate for open payments standards
>>>>> and they have employed me to do this ever since.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600781/technical-roadblock-might-shatter-bitcoin-dreams/
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-bad-reputation-payments-standards-w3c/
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 February 2016 at 21:28, Melvin Carvalho <
>>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 August 2014 at 16:19, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My theory is that Ripple have realised that they will not get wide
>>>>>>> spread support given that their intermediary currency is mostly held by
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>> i.e. They invented a network that will make them rich if everyone
>>>>>>> starts to use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My hope is that the change of heart is because those involved in
>>>>>>> Stellar genuinely want to use the technology for good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way they don't hide the fact that they have history with
>>>>>>> Ripple (see Jed McCaleb's entry on the team page) or their indirect support
>>>>>>> of Ripple (see the Bitcoin Program under their mandate).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those that have been following this work, there has been a new
>>>>>> development together with an announcement on Jed's blog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://jedmccaleb.com/blog/my-settlement-victory-with-ripple/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Bitcoin program is very interesting reading. (
>>>>>>> https://www.stellar.org/about/mandate/#Bitcoin_program)
>>>>>>> As I understand it they are encouraging people to buy Bitcoin over
>>>>>>> the next 6 months and donate their XRP to charities for the best return on
>>>>>>> whatever XRP they had on 24 May.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 July 2014 21:51, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/31/2014 03:11 PM, John Packel wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Not a fork but a new project/company (non-profit, apparently).
>>>>>>>> McCaleb
>>>>>>>> > was a founder of Ripple's precursor and then left after a dispute
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> > the other founders. Several press stories about it last year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's not a fork, then why are all the main contributors to
>>>>>>>> Ripple the
>>>>>>>> main contributors to Stellar? Look at the frequency and magnitude of
>>>>>>>> commits by author between stellard and rippled:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/stellar/stellard/graphs/contributors
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/ripple/rippled/graphs/contributors
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I get that the code base is now managed by a non-profit and that the
>>>>>>>> disbursement model is different than Ripple, but other than that, it
>>>>>>>> looks like it's basically the Ripple protocol (even most of the
>>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>> is shared).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >From where I sit, and this is just conjecture again, it looks like
>>>>>>>> Jed
>>>>>>>> (or this new organization) is trying to resolve the long-standing
>>>>>>>> "private entities own a significant amount of the pre-mined
>>>>>>>> currency"
>>>>>>>> criticism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- manu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>>>>>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>>>>>> blog: High-Stakes Credentials and Web Login
>>>>>>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/identity-credentials/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>