Ripple Trade fork?

[OlivierA]

Is it possible?

If so, I would participate. I'm looking for a better place to trade and exchange. RT is/was the best I found so far.

Let me know. Thank you.

[Tompa]

It's certainly possible. Just making a clean fork would not be that difficult or work intensive. But to maintain it and fix bugs etc would be very difficult, work intensive and expensive. With the  ecosystem fading each day there is almost no chance that any reputable company would find any reason to overtake that burden. Some private persons might perhaps. But then you have the security issue. How could you trust them to not steal your funds? Doing so would be dirt easy because only a little code change would be needed to obtain your secret key. 

If you could fix a copy of the downloadable client then you would have a trading option, otherwise is Gate Hub the way to go now.

[OlivierA]

@TompaI have migrated to GateHub but their interface is not for me. Too many things to change, I don't think they will make those changes in the near future.

I can give a lot of my time for a serious project. Thank you for reminding the fact that there's a big part of this that includes security and trust.

[RafOlP]

3 hours ago, OlivierA said:

@TompaI have migrated to GateHub but their interface is not for me. Too many things to change, I don't think they will make those changes in the near future.

I can give a lot of my time for a serious project. Thank you for reminding the fact that there's a big part of this that includes security and trust.

Does the wallet must be a web wallet saving blobs to a cloud blobvault?

If not, please take a look at this repo: https://github.com/rippex/ripple-client-desktop

And in this thread: 

 

The interface is similar to rippletrade in many ways, and the base code is from rippletrade.

All help is welcome!

[OlivierA]

2 hours ago, RafOlP said:

Does the wallet must be a web wallet saving blobs to a cloud blobvault?

 

If I understand, RT is a cloud blobvault and the legal problem that goes with it made them close today. Don't know if it's only a US thing or this will be the same everywhere else.

If I understand, it would be to find an easy and friendly web interface with no legal problem.

 

2 hours ago, RafOlP said:

The interface is similar to rippletrade in many ways, and the base code is from rippletrade.

All help is welcome!

I downloaded the package. I really like what you did. I will contact you in private to see where I can be of some help.

Thanks

 

 

[RafOlP]

7 hours ago, OlivierA said:

I downloaded the package. I really like what you did. I will contact you in private to see where I can be of some help.

Thanks

For the record, Ripple created this app. We just fixed a critical bug and made some adjustments.

7 hours ago, OlivierA said:

Don't know if it's only a US thing or this will be the same everywhere else.

Well, its basically what blockchain.info does, and apparently they dont have legal problems because they are bases in Europe.

Also, its hard to tell if Ripple would have had problems by simply hosting a blobvault and providind a wallet app if they had never did those irregular XRP trades.

[Guest]

For the record: I plan releasing ripple.trade later this year. But not without consulting ripple on this matter first. Community site first, trading platform later perhaps.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, lucky said:

For the record: I plan releasing ripple.trade later this year. But not without consulting ripple on this matter first. Community site first, trading platform later perhaps.

Just FYI, releasing a Ripple-related service on a domain containing "ripple" in it might be a trademark infrigement. You may to want consider changing the name/domain.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tomxcs said:

Just FYI, releasing a Ripple-related service on a domain containing "ripple" in it might be a trademark infrigement. You may to want consider changing the name/domain.

I think this would cover it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

[Guest]

1 minute ago, lucky said:

I think this would cover it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

I advise you to consult an intellectual property lawyer. No doubt Ripple will protect their brand if you offer a Ripple-based service under a Ripple Labs-trademarked name or domain.

[Guest]

sure I will. and as I said, plan to consult ripple on this anyway, i might have a proposal that they love.

having said that, I think you can't push a payment protocol into global adoption and at the same time prevent people referring to it by its proper name.

[Guest]

@lucky I understand your point and agree, but I think where the trademark problem comes in is not if you were to offer a service and then say "powered by Ripple network," "based on open source Ripple Trade platform," etc. but rather if you brand your service "Ripple XYZ" or serve it from ripple.trade which I think would cause confusion about the ownership of the service/provider.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Guest
Typo and additions

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tomxcs said:

@lucky I understand your point and agree, but I think where the trademark problem comes in is not if you were to offer a service and then say "powered by Ripple network," "based on open source Ripple Trade platform," etc. but rather if you brand your service "Ripple XYZ" or serve it from ripple.trade which I think would cause confusion about the ownership of the service/provider.

Sure. But rest assured, I have no intention causing any such confusion, or entering a legal dispute. The domain is a diamond I could not resist buying. In case you wonder what the heck my intention are, this might shine some light on my broader plans. Just completed that text today, expect pretty screenshots and a few more edits next week.

[Guest]

On 1-4-2016 at 7:41 PM, tomxcs said:

offer a Ripple-based service under a Ripple Labs-trademarked name or domain

Interesting fact here, found out that Ninth Circuit Applied Nominative Use Defense to Domain Names and motivated it with:

"It is the wholesale prohibition of nominative use in domain names that would be unfair. It would be unfair to merchants seeking to communicate the nature of the service or product offered at their sites. And it would be unfair to consumers, who would be deprived of an increasingly important means of receiving such information. As noted, this would have serious First Amendment implications."

This seems in direct conflict with the following wholesale prohibition on  Ripple's Brand Policy:

"No Registration or Domain Name: You may not register, in whole or in part, as a trademark, domain name or otherwise any Ripple Brand Asset or an alteration or derivative thereof.  You may not use an identical or virtually identical Ripple trademark, in whole or in part, as a second level domain name."

So, my understanding from the Ninth Circuit decision is that if I would make it clear that services at ripple.trade are not affiliated with the company Ripple, but are directly related to the activity concerning their similarly named product,  it would not dilute the brand, it would not cause confusion, and I should be safe in using it as such.

But, as said, whatever I'll do on that domain will be in consultation with Ripple, and once I set my teeth in it, I'll make sure they love it.