Jump to content

Why did Jed McCaleb leave Ripple to start Stellar


invest2lose

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, nikb said:

I doubt you’ll find a shortage of opinions on Jed or what he did, but don’t think anyone said that Jed is evil.

I am determined to prove a villain

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,

By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,

To set my brother Clarence and the king

In deadly hate the one against the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to comment on Jed too much (for a brief history see the Book of Ripple, book Beta), but I will just say this- Jed has left Ripple and mostly this community several years ago. And we are STILL talking about him, mostly in a negative manner. There are few individuals who once gone from a company who can generate such... passion. That alone says it all for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mercury said:

There are few individuals who once gone from a company who can generate such... passion. That alone says it all for me.

Well, history doesn't know too many similar cases where a project founder rage quits due to his own childishness and tries to destroy his ex-project while also screwing up everyone who invested in it based on his own promotion one year before.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2017 at 5:46 AM, Max Entropy said:

@JoelKatz

Well, if you have met 'investors' then you will know they are a different bred of animal. Not all, but most from my experience you would not take home to meet the family. I have experience with Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and others. 

I think we will agree, that given the concerns that I itemized in my post, that Ripple now has a problem. In my opinion, and I have clearly stated this many times... Ripple is eating nobodies lunch today. Ripple has pivoted several times because of this. Stellar, I hope, will bring pressure to bear on the banks.

Centralized banking is a relatively new phenomenon. Hopefully, their role will be diminished - globally. Peer to peer money, like Napster, is now possible. BitTorrent is now a commonly accepted protocol. Banks will need to accept this and play a different role.

--

I will return - when Stellar XLM/STR challenges XRP's valuation. Who could have foreseen this.

 If Stellar enables peer to peer, then they will win.

Hi Max. I am curious why you think peer-to-peer is the critical item to victory. Also, I am curious as to your definition of peer-to-peer. I think it is not so clear any longer, especially now with institutions getting in the digital currency party - for example, are you thinking of a model where there is no intermidiation? When you have some time I would appreciate a few words. 

Thanks !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, lucky said:

energy efficient POW is an oxymoron.

POW means miners will burn so much energy at calculating literally nonsense up to the point when it is barely profitable, while the difficulty of the nonsense that needs to be computed to find the next block, increases to prevent that more than n blocks per hour are found.

This way there is a linear correlation between price of btc and energy spent on mining new coins. In the sense that energy spent follows market price of btc, not the other way.

Currently Bitcoin mining requires something like 1/1000th of the worlds daily energy. If the Bitcoin price would increase x 1000, so would it's energy consumption, no matter how much more efficient the mining chips will be. Energy consumption would be equal to the current consumption of this entire planet. Thats obviously not going to happen. Bitcoin is not sustainable, and the party will end. It was only temporary needed to kick in the door for sustainable solutions such as Ripple.

I was hoping there would be sufficient context in my first post (and especially the second post I made) for you and the others that responded to your post with positive emoticons to figure out what I was saying with IOTA, but I was very wrong.

I deliberately used bitcoin mining proof of work as an extreme counterexample to what IOTA is proposing, but rather than focus on IOTA's approach, you only further supported my counterexample.

People are stuck in the mentality that proof of work has to be on the same level as bitcoin.  I'm not talking about putting bitcoin's POW algorithm ASIC solving hardware on a 50 cent chip. I'm talking about POW ASIC mining being more efficient because of hardware improvements with time.

Who said that IOTA's chips must solve as difficult a problem as bitcoin's POW? I certainly didn't.

POW means you just prove you solved a problem, it doesn't allude to the difficulty of the problem, so the difficulty is up to the creator.

So,  back to the problem that IOTA is trying to solve:  you put a simple POW ASIC into a chip, the problem being solved via POW sufficiently easy so that electrical costs are negligible.  Then, because of the nature of IOTA's tangle an attacker would require several things to mount a successful attack:

1) ten or hundreds of millions or even billions of chips

2) put up an exponentially increasing attack

And what is the reward?  Remember, IOTA will be supporting mostly microtransactions among machines, so if the attack is successful,  the attacker will be able to get with a few pennies worth of double spends.

Edited by enrique11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @kuyu

I worry that, we, mere mortals will not see the timing of the financial reset. In fact, I know I will not. 

I read what Michael Hudson (prof U.Missouri, Economics) says... do not always agree, but I understand why he thinks this way. For us, the issue is the following:

  • to avoid being intellectually complicit with stuff / organizations that we would not want to do personally. I have read too much about the issues with the banks. They are too large and too centralized. They have been corrupted. Sure there are a great number of good people there, but as Jamie Dimond has said, Silicon Valley is coming...
  • avoid the collateral risk... the banks all hold derivatives (positions) that will collapse one, and then their counter-parts. We can not be sure where the dominos will fall, or who pulls the rug out from under the other.

So to your question about peer-to-peer... I am technical in a number of areas from AI, to TCP/IP, to messaging protocols. So I guess peer-to-peer would mean for me, networked ability to avoid the banking reset. In this solution space, I can see 'bitcoin node' equivalents as being part of a peer to peer solution. I can see that these nodes are in fact a form of client-server. But as long as individuals can 'run' (install, run, operate, administer) then I would consider this to loosely peer to peer.

I am greatly impressed with the design ideas coming out of Shapeshift (Prism). Their hands on experience is leading to some impressive solutions that replace the need for exchanges. They are a bit pricey.

--

I guess lastly, I suspect that the banks will turn Ripple into a segmented global network wherein all transactions, and hence users/clients are NOT equal. This is why I support Jed. I believe that he is closer to enabling any human on the planet to transact than all other solutions. Incidentally, Jed/Stellar focus on the 'recipient' nations and not the fat cat nations as for Mr. Larson's much vaunted statements about 'Internet of Value'... is more strategic. It is best to focus on those who have not. If one reads the Stellar Blog item on IBM, you will realize that it was not IBM that came to Stellar, but a company called KickEx or something like that, that seems to have bridged the current relationship. This is a marriage made in heaven for IBM, who is seeking to expand its banking group footprint into emerging nations. So Stellar wins the attention of IBM, precisely because of this business focus on emerging nations.

-- 

If I had more time, I would look who from ShapeShift is speaking at conferences and monitor their output. They are a great combination of, any crypto, any exchange, client focused, strong encryption, without holding credentials.

There are probably more companies (R&D) like ShapeShift out there, but I do not know of them, today.

--

The space has become toooo large for me to easily monitor what is going on.

I am however, working on an idea that may enable tracking news/prices using machine learning attached to sets of near realtime data from global sources.

It is just exploratory today.

--

Cheers

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Trickery

Naa... you are thinking of 19th century mortgages... you will need to move to the 21st century.

Besides... those good banks... that are using their 'fractional reserve' systems will not be in business after the reset. There will need to be alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @kuyu

Sorry, I gave you an 'off the cuff'... response... I am in the middle of some other work and I have not really given adequate thought/response to your excellent question. System/network architecture is always critical and I suspect a simplistic peer-to-peer solution is not the best. I would have to commit ideas to paper to properly answer you.

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Max Entropy said:

I guess lastly, I suspect that the banks will turn Ripple into a segmented global network wherein all transactions, and hence users/clients are NOT equal. This is why I support Jed. I believe that he is closer to enabling any human on the planet to transact than all other solutions.

It will fundamentally be exactly the same as Stellar's distributed ledger. Validators will be trusted based on performance, reliability & security. Transactions and accounts will not be inequal, as there is no real incentive for validators to start excluding particular transactions from happening, nor could they effectively do so. Stellar (self-declared) non-profit foundation & Jed have a history of terrible strategic decisions, dishonest mudslinging campaigns and overall incompetence. I wouldn't trust them one bit.

7 hours ago, Max Entropy said:

Incidentally, Jed/Stellar focus on the 'recipient' nations and not the fat cat nations as for Mr. Larson's much vaunted statements about 'Internet of Value'... is more strategic. It is best to focus on those who have not.

If you want your value network to become relevant you focus on those who actually move significant amounts of value and provide them a better path for those transactions. Annual B2B cross-border payments volume is in a completely different league vs global remittance volumes. Financial institutions are the first ones to actually appreciate an improved value tx network, while also being VERY relevant globally.  Everyone else will eventually follow and benefit from it. 

Just like internet of information first began to be used by those who realized the value of it: universities & research institutes -> companies -> consumers.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Max Entropy said:

I worry that, we, mere mortals will not see the timing of the financial reset. In fact, I know I will not. 

I read what Michael Hudson (prof U.Missouri, Economics) says... do not always agree, but I understand why he thinks this way. For us, the issue is the following:

  • to avoid being intellectually complicit with stuff / organizations that we would not want to do personally. I have read too much about the issues with the banks. They are too large and too centralized. They have been corrupted. Sure there are a great number of good people there, but as Jamie Dimond has said, Silicon Valley is coming...
  • avoid the collateral risk... the banks all hold derivatives (positions) that will collapse one, and then their counter-parts. We can not be sure where the dominos will fall, or who pulls the rug out from under the other.

Hi again @Max Entropy. I understand you are working on something, so the above might not be a complete answer. But we can entertain the thoughts until a future moment. Since I am not technical in terms of the complexities in messaging, networking, internet protocols, blockchain etc., I will take it from fundamentals which I do have some grasp of. So to the banks. Your are correct, they are centralized and they are at present exposed to collateral risk. In terms of elements such as corruption, that's a sunken cost and will apply whether the banks exist, exist in a diminished manner, or do not exist at all. People will collude whether the banks are there or not. By having the interests centralized in an institution, at least we are better able to hold people accountable. The inverse aspect which is yet missing though, is good healthy political systems. You see without the proper regulation, the institutions falter. But i still think institutions are a better way of managing corruption, collusion for fraud etc as compared to peer-to-peer frameworks.

Derivatives are not going away. I have read up on Prism by the way. Very interesting and thank you for the heads up. Just a few thoughts. Yes that kind of system would help eliminate some risk from the derivatives markets, i'll acknowledge that. But entirely risk-less system is not possible. The risk of default is inherent in the financial system. You cannot eliminate that risk - or better yet, you should not. There will always be debt out there, that someone is NOT good for.  I would argue that a peer-to-peer system which holds the value in advance, besides decreasing risk (again i reiterate, not fully), would also mean less opportunity. We should not focus only on the downside of risk - there is also an upside. Risk is required for the great endeavors of humankind - financial or otherwise.   

I strongly believe in institutions myself so obviously I am biased in my opinions. But I believe the main issues our financial systems are facing, are political and regulatory. What technology and blockhain should be allowed to do, or aim to do first, is work directly with regulators and governments, so that we can enable better control and management of our institutions. I am quite confident that even no intermediation, peer-to-peer framework would be subject to just as much risk, if not more. I would joke, with a little bit of seriousness, that the only way to reduce the risk entirely in the ways humanly possible to conceive, would be to hand over the management of our financial and political systems to a quantum computer powered A.I., which no group or individual could ever hope to game. Otherwise, with the current context, we will always try to game each other. Peer-to-peer or otherwise. 

9 hours ago, Max Entropy said:

I guess lastly, I suspect that the banks will turn Ripple into a segmented global network wherein all transactions, and hence users/clients are NOT equal. This is why I support Jed. I believe that he is closer to enabling any human on the planet to transact than all other solutions. Incidentally, Jed/Stellar focus on the 'recipient' nations and not the fat cat nations as for Mr. Larson's much vaunted statements about 'Internet of Value'... is more strategic. It is best to focus on those who have not. If one reads the Stellar Blog item on IBM, you will realize that it was not IBM that came to Stellar, but a company called KickEx or something like that, that seems to have bridged the current relationship. This is a marriage made in heaven for IBM, who is seeking to expand its banking group footprint into emerging nations. So Stellar wins the attention of IBM, precisely because of this business focus on emerging nations.

It remains to be seen as to the focus on developed, emerging  markets etc. I would argue that one needs to start with the developed markets first but then again I could be wrong. McKinsey notes that emerging markets will define the next century, in buying power, outputs, populations etc. It's a fact given the current global dynamics. As for Stellar itself, I just don't know. Even the announcement about IBM. When compared to Ripple, there is a lack of transparency. Not saying it is good or bad but I do not feel I am able to evaluate their processes and "competitive moves" as well as Ripple's. So I will withhold comparisons at present. I will just say that it is sad that the whole environment had to be so toxic. It quite clearly does everyone a disservice regardless. 

Edited by kuyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Max Entropy said:

Hi @kuyu

I worry that, we, mere mortals will not see the timing of the financial reset. In fact, I know I will not. 

I read what Michael Hudson (prof U.Missouri, Economics) says... do not always agree, but I understand why he thinks this way. For us, the issue is the following:

  • to avoid being intellectually complicit with stuff / organizations that we would not want to do personally. I have read too much about the issues with the banks. They are too large and too centralized. They have been corrupted. Sure there are a great number of good people there, but as Jamie Dimond has said, Silicon Valley is coming...
  • avoid the collateral risk... the banks all hold derivatives (positions) that will collapse one, and then their counter-parts. We can not be sure where the dominos will fall, or who pulls the rug out from under the other.

So to your question about peer-to-peer... I am technical in a number of areas from AI, to TCP/IP, to messaging protocols. So I guess peer-to-peer would mean for me, networked ability to avoid the banking reset. In this solution space, I can see 'bitcoin node' equivalents as being part of a peer to peer solution. I can see that these nodes are in fact a form of client-server. But as long as individuals can 'run' (install, run, operate, administer) then I would consider this to loosely peer to peer.

I am greatly impressed with the design ideas coming out of Shapeshift (Prism). Their hands on experience is leading to some impressive solutions that replace the need for exchanges. They are a bit pricey.

--

I guess lastly, I suspect that the banks will turn Ripple into a segmented global network wherein all transactions, and hence users/clients are NOT equal. This is why I support Jed. I believe that he is closer to enabling any human on the planet to transact than all other solutions. Incidentally, Jed/Stellar focus on the 'recipient' nations and not the fat cat nations as for Mr. Larson's much vaunted statements about 'Internet of Value'... is more strategic. It is best to focus on those who have not. If one reads the Stellar Blog item on IBM, you will realize that it was not IBM that came to Stellar, but a company called KickEx or something like that, that seems to have bridged the current relationship. This is a marriage made in heaven for IBM, who is seeking to expand its banking group footprint into emerging nations. So Stellar wins the attention of IBM, precisely because of this business focus on emerging nations.

-- 

If I had more time, I would look who from ShapeShift is speaking at conferences and monitor their output. They are a great combination of, any crypto, any exchange, client focused, strong encryption, without holding credentials.

There are probably more companies (R&D) like ShapeShift out there, but I do not know of them, today.

--

The space has become toooo large for me to easily monitor what is going on.

I am however, working on an idea that may enable tracking news/prices using machine learning attached to sets of near realtime data from global sources.

It is just exploratory today.

--

Cheers

Peer to Peer ..... What exactly does it mean? And what has the internet to offer in this besides all the risks involved? When we send an email... is that peer to peer? No its not ... unless one uses SMTP and is running his own services. Guess that most of us use those centralised services like Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, whatever.... (even Libertanians do so :) )

Dreaming of a world where one can send funds from peer to peer without any central service or governance ... is dreaming of to much responsibility for the majority of us. It's like having all your wealth converted to gold and guarded in our own houses and .... creating the ultimate dream for crooks and robbers, now even able to steal "the gold" from US to Nigeria without moving themselves even one single inch. Is that what you want? 
Ripple has it completely right: CONVERT the banks, make the funds as fluid as possible, make Banks competing way more to become the guards of our funds that we can move around for less than a penny,.... THAT will turn out into real and rational P2P moving funds with us in control and the banks as the assurers if something went wrong, even if that mistake was a bit by our own unawarenesses ....

Edited by kanaas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kanaas - Hi...

i know SMTP etc. rather well and I can assure you it is going to be replaced. DNS is going to be replaced. With these security changes then the Internet architecture as we know it changes. You should consider running an IPFS (Inter-Planetary File System) node, to get a sense of where this is going.

Ripple... notice what it is doing:

  • they say they are focused on the transfer of value... focused on the 1st world, while Stellar is focused on 3rd world for the same problem.
  • i will say that Ripple is not doing what they say
  • i think they are building a replacement network for when ALL banks fail. There is not sufficient space to examine the debt and derivatives problem in the West re: counter party risk to banks. I think they all go down.
  • That leaves only the Central Bank's and BIS... and guess what... that is who Ripple is hanging around with.
  • Ripple makes perfect sense from the BIS to regional Central Bank control model
  • The regional or nation state central banks will then directly connect to corporations 
  • SBI is an example of a new type of corporation... a conglomerate group operating with their own internal crypto system with Gateways to other groups and to Central Banks.

Someone here mentioned the requirement for building blocks to the future and the requirement to work with the existing banks. Boldly, I think these banks must die. They have too much debt and will not be able to preserve credibly during a reset. 

The exchanges of today, Coinbase, Kraken... these are the bank of the future. Note, Japan, the country with the most debt to GDP is the first to embrace crypto from a regulatory perspective. Clearly, they see the writing on the wall.

The Ripple / Swift folks will combine efforts... because they will be working for the same centralization masters.

--

XRP increased valuation could be awhile off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @kuyu

Well, in general I could have agreed with you awhile back... before I 'woke up'. But after 9/11, I have come to realize that the system wholly corrupt or corrupted. No one is accountable. Everyone has been co-opted. Lastly, the decent people just want to keep their jobs. No one will object to corruption. Worse, centralization can be achieved by simply hiring UN-employed people, and they, then, will do what they are told to - because they will not want to lose their jobs.

There is a famous painter who has the four (4) seasons of countries. Spring, summer, fall, and winter... we are approaching winter. 

Cleanup is now necessary. What comes out the other side will be very different. I was surprised when Steve Wozinak moved to New Zealand, then I was surprised to see the number of people renouncing US citizenship and leaving. 

It may be the case, that the NSA just grinds the US into pulp. I do not really understand what drives this process. But you can see with IPFS and crypto in general that there is a concerted response to centralization. I expect that there will be no early winner and that there will be protracted struggle for a new economy. Decentralization will win, but the old still and Ripple like systems will cling for some time. I see Ripple as proprietary system that is like MS Exchange... it will become adopted by the establishment groups... and necessarily integrated with the Internet's Bitcoin layers. Ripple is not going to be the innovator that I once thought possible. Only open systems can generate enough random mutations to succeed. Ripple dos not enable this. I attribute this again, directly, back to the disastrous leadership of Larson. 

I agree with the requirement for risk... as this will drive mutations in the system. But I think you will agree that entrepreneurs will be attracted to open systems, and not Ripple's proprietary products. I have started a new vector on Ripple's proprietary software (ie not open source). There are whole bunch of issues here. The largest for me is that vetting the code will never happen. Vetting means validating and testing the semantics. Ripple has always been isolated and had only its own developers. 

--

I can see that you a reasoned person, but not yet accepting that they system is wholly corrupt. Nice chatting.

:-)

--

I guess lastly, the reason the consulting group see the 3rd world as the emergent value of the future, is that the first world has been milked dry. 

I am not sure about the 3rd world. Boldly, I think that there is reasoned difference between how cultures think, develop and maintain stuff. Example, German and Japanese automobiles. The US and say, UK can not compete in quality. Canada, Australia, etc can not compete for other reasons. Russia and China can not compete for different reasons. There is something true but different with software, where the US or California can currently dominate, while Germany and Japan contribute not much. The mindsets in these cultures are very different.

The mindset in the 3rd world is in a different dimension entirely. Maybe they must go through a 100 years of industrialization to catch up. And differently, if oil is replaced with solar then the Middle East does what? You may know about 'abiotic' theory of oil. I first read about it in Russian science. I think they are right. The idea that dinosaurs and plant life could have been rotting miles under the earth's crust is now for me, preposterous. The Middle East is entirely dependent on the model that oil is running out. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...