Jump to content
anotherscott

Fidor Bank to use Ethereum

Recommended Posts

I said sometime back that Ripple had to almost make an acquisition and start using XRP themselves to get it moving. Looks to me very much like SBI could be the front runner, not an acquisition but a partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tulo said:

In fact Fidor was using Snapswap IOUs, so actually if you wanted to pay a Fidor account using Ripple you had to deliver USD.snapswap. How can I pay a person in USD.snapswap with my USD.Bitstamp if there is not liquidity between the two IOUs?

Fidor never actually implemented accepting Snapswap.IOUs (and increasing balance in your real bank account). The only thing that Fidor implemented was "Send to snapswap".

Quote

Yeah, XRP payments are mainly for speculation. No REAL business are accepting XRP. No REAL business to be compliant with the law can accept XRP.

Privateinternetaccess.com is real business and it accepts XRP? Regarding compliance: probably depends on the jurisdiction. Businesses can accept anything as a form of payment, including the goats and magic internet money. Microsoft was accepting bitcoins for a while.

But primary XRP use case is certainly not merchant use.

Quote

No REAL business will ever use XRP because of the volatility. You know tomorrow I can fake the XRP payment just by sending back and forth XRP from my accounts with a bot. Does that mean that Ripple is used as a business?

No. But your example shows exactly this: there's no way to tell real nature of your transactions if all you have is payment transaction from one account to another. Real banking transactions will look exactly the same as your fake XRP payment volume.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, T8493 said:

No. But your example shows exactly this: there's no way to tell real nature of your transactions if all you have is payment transaction from one account to another. Real banking transactions will look exactly the same as your fake XRP payment volume.

Yeah sure...when you'll know a bank using XRP payments intra-bank (non-ILP) make me a whistle... :rolleyes:

 

27 minutes ago, T8493 said:

Privateinternetaccess.com is real business and it accepts XRP

Wrong! they want USD.Bitstamp. This is their address (r9EUYx41zx3audeARUwpkDF7VuwcmbwYTU) and they want to be paid in USD and they have a trust line only with Bitstamp. So they are not accepting XRP. You can of course pay with XRP but only because there is liquidity and market makers between USD.Bitstamp and XRP. If you want to pay them 30k USD with gatehub there wouldn't be enough liquidity and paying with XRP would have 10% slippage.

Edited by tulo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tulo said:

Yeah sure...when you'll know a bank using XRP payments intra-bank (non-ILP) make me a whistle... :rolleyes:

Why is it important that the payment is intra- (and not inter-)bank and why it shouldn't use ILP?

I doubt we'll ever see intrabank transfers on Ripple. I also doubt we will be ever able to distinguish ILP from non-ILP payment transactions.

I was wrong about privateinternetaccess, sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T8493 said:

Why is it important that the payment is intra- (and not inter-)bank and why it shouldn't use ILP?

I doubt we'll ever see intrabank transfers on Ripple. I also doubt we will be ever able to distinguish ILP from non-ILP payment transactions.

 

I meant inter-banks...and we were talking about business built on Ripple, not ILP. ILP doesn't exist yet and it won't be ready and usable soon. I'm talking about using Ripple NOW for business. Again I repeat: I see the potential (especially with ILP), but right now Ripple cannot offer a reliable backbone for any serious business. This is why Fidor abandoned.


Market making incentive, incentive to reduce ripple transfer fees of gateways, stabilization of XRP (how??) and decentralization is what could bring Ripple on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tulo said:

I meant inter-banks...and we were talking about business built on Ripple, not ILP. ILP doesn't exist yet and it won't be ready and usable soon. I'm talking about using Ripple NOW for business. Again I repeat: I see the potential (especially with ILP), but right now Ripple cannot offer a reliable backbone for any serious business. This is why Fidor abandoned.

What about Ripple Stream solutions? These don't support ILP (yet), but they're AFAIK completely developed and work (and provide services similar to ILP,  except that they work only on RCL).

 

Edited by T8493

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tulo said:

It was not a trolling comment.

How can you say Ripple is usable for banks or real business? Did you try to use it for a real business? Do you know real use cases? Did you ever try to use API or other Ripple related products or your is just a pure speculation as 99% of the comments here?

These are my arguments why Ripple is not suitable (NOW) for any business:

  • Lack of liquidity and market makers: the liquidity is very low, and any serious payment would make a slippage of many %. Try to pay 20k USD between two of the biggest USD issuer: Bitstamp and Gatehub. You'll end up paying MUCH MORE on Ripple than using any other standard payment (even Paypal).
  • Volatility of XRP: no serious business would buy/use XRP as bridge currency because the volatility is too high. It would be more a gambling than an investment.
  • Setup of Ripple NODE: a business would require one or two people just to set-up a Ripple node and to interface to it. For BIG business that could be fine, but for small business is it worth the price?
  • Centralization: Ripple (NOW) is centralized. Why would I base my business on a network controlled by a single company in California? What if they decide to shut down the validators? What if they fail economically? For sure relying on Ripple it is not like relying on SEPA or SWIFT or actual banking network.

 

Again, my points are related to the actual situation (that won't change for a few years probably). There is the potential, but right now I wouldn't ever rely my business on Ripple.

Okay, @tulo, here are my responses to your statement that Ripple (company? Product? service?) is not suitable (using xrp?  using blockchain as a distributed ledger?) now for any business:

Lack of liquidity and market makers:  Your narrow point is valid, but it focuses only on one circumstance:  the transfer of money by a consumer between two gateways.  What would a business use a block-chain solution for?  Ripple - the company - offers business solutions and can go into banks and FIs and can implement a back-end that will integrate with other units of a company, and / or that company's partners on a common framework for communication and ledger entries.  Transferring money by consumers into and out of the network is, and continues to be expensive for all crypto-currencies, not just on the Ripple network.

Volatility of XRP: This has been overplayed so many times.  Banks and FIs don't need a large amount of XRP to serve as a "postage stamp" for transactions.  For a bank or FI, a small investment to use a distributed network is peanuts.  A decent-sized FI could spend 5k to get enough XRP for the next ten years.  And the destruction rate is dynamic and can be decreased - why the concern over the cost of XRP?  For other users of XRP as a Forex System - traders, - a decent amount of volatility is an advantage.  The cost of FIAT against other FIAT  is a fact of life for all banks and traders right now, regardless of their use of XRP to trade currencies.

Setup of Ripple NODE:  First of all, it really doesn't take two FTEs to set up a Ripple node and maintain it!  That is a stretch.  I can set up a node running on a decent sized tower in my home for under 1k.  Done.  For interfacing with it, you need a developer with a generic knowledge of how to use APIs.  That knowledge makes that developer no more special than any other developer that can use APIs.  They can utilize APIs to their Ripple node, and also for maintenance of other Systems as well for the small bank.  As you admitted, this is not an issue for large banks no matter how you slice it.

Centralization:  As Bitcoin, Ethereum, and countless others proved time and again, we don't need a business to keep a network running.  I'm surprised you put this red herring out there, but I guess it might scare some people and businesses, right?  But lets get back to if this would happen.  Ripple just sold a material interest in their company to a massive mutli-national financial institution (SBI),  So you're saying that to buy your argument, SBI (and other very powerful current Ripple partners) will just let problems get bad and sit on the bench and watch? Is that really what you're saying?

The other very genuine question is: If you really believe it's that bad, why are you complaining on a forum?  My guess is that you invested in XRP at some point, and are disappointed in how long you've waited to see your return?  Is that actually what's going on?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, tulo said:

Wrong! they want USD.Bitstamp.

I've seen this multiple times, and I want to respond to it.  The only difference between a business using Bitcoin or the Ripple network, is the timing of when they transition to fiat. 

To say that a business doesn't use Ripple in this instance is misleading - they are using the Ripple network to transition either their XRP or IOUs to fiat via a gateway somewhere.  For Bitcoin, if a business accepts it, that's great - but they are not storing it for any appreciable length of time - there too, they are using a service to transition those tokens to fiat as well, but you have to do that with Bitcoin outside the network. 

Waving your banana in the air and saying "I won the point" because a business is not directly accepting XRP and storing it (why would any business do this with any crypo if they had a choice?) is not a legitimate argument in my view.  Using the Ripple network gives businesses a choice of how they want to accept payment.  They don't have to get paid in XRP - they can get paid in the form of fiat IOUs on their preferred gateway or FI.  In the case of Bitcoin, they have to hold the crypt for a lot longer! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hodor said:

Lack of liquidity and market makers:  Your narrow point is valid, but it focuses only on one circumstance:  the transfer of money by a consumer between two gateways.  What would a business use a block-chain solution for?  Ripple - the company - offers business solutions and can go into banks and FIs and can implement a back-end that will integrate with other units of a company, and / or that company's partners on a common framework for communication and ledger entries.  Transferring money by consumers into and out of the network is, and continues to be expensive for all crypto-currencies, not just on the Ripple network.

I was focusing on transferring money between gateways because it is the only way to use Ripple now. How do you think a bank is supposed to use Ripple? Tell me a suitable solution that doesn't involve IOUs to IOUs. I'm happy to hear. ILP is not valid as answer since it will be ready maybe in 2 years :)

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

Volatility of XRP: This has been overplayed so many times.  Banks and FIs don't need a large amount of XRP to serve as a "postage stamp" for transactions.  For a bank or FI, a small investment to use a distributed network is peanuts.  A decent-sized FI could spend 5k to get enough XRP for the next ten years.  And the destruction rate is dynamic and can be decreased - why the concern over the cost of XRP?  For other users of XRP as a Forex System - traders, - a decent amount of volatility is an advantage.  The cost of FIAT against other FIAT  is a fact of life for all banks and traders right now, regardless of their use of XRP to trade currencies.

Volatility to buy XRP as stamps doesn't matter. But volatility for MM matters. With XRP volatile MMs wouldn't create markets between IOUs and XRP. And without XRP as bridge currency it is going to be a huge problem because of exponentially bigger number of IOU:IOU pairs, that means more spread liquidity (again low liquidity).

 

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

Centralization:  As Bitcoin, Ethereum, and countless others proved time and again, we don't need a business to keep a network running.  I'm surprised you put this red herring out there, but I guess it might scare some people and businesses, right?  But lets get back to if this would happen.  Ripple just sold a material interest in their company to a massive mutli-national financial institution (SBI),  So you're saying that to buy your argument, SBI (and other very powerful current Ripple partners) will just let problems get bad and sit on the bench and watch? Is that really what you're saying?

Again I'm talking about the ACTUAL network. RCL is centralized. Ripple.Inc could decide at any time to shut it down in seconds.
And do you really know the deal between SBI and Ripple? If so why don't you share your info with us :P? Even Fidor looked good, but we see how it ended.

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

The other very genuine question is: If you really believe it's that bad, why are you complaining on a forum?  My guess is that you invested in XRP at some point, and are disappointed in how long you've waited to see your return?  Is that actually what's going on?

I'm complaining because I'd like Ripple to succeed. I'm proposing solutions to actual Ripple problems, not just spreading FUD. The MM incentive was an idea I posted on forum years ago. I don't care too much in XRP. I have my full time job at the university (in a completely different field). I invested maybe 2% of my capital in XRP to have enough XRP for market making with my bots to make some liquidity in RCL. Many of my bots stopped because I don't have time to keep them updated.
If I invested in XRP why would I complain? to make the price even worst? ;)
I'm complaining because maybe (I doubt it) someone at Ripple will hear me. But I proposed many stuff (from better autobridge, to different fee escalation, a different pathfinding algorithm) but none cares :D

 

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

To say that a business doesn't use Ripple in this instance is misleading - they are using the Ripple network to transition either their XRP or IOUs to fiat via a gateway somewhere.  For Bitcoin, if a business accepts it, that's great - but they are not storing it for any appreciable length of time - there too, they are using a service to transition those tokens to fiat as well, but you have to do that with Bitcoin outside the network. 

Waving your banana in the air and saying "I won the point" because a business is not directly accepting XRP and storing it (why would any business do this with any crypo if they had a choice?) is not a legitimate argument in my view.  Using the Ripple network gives businesses a choice of how they want to accept payment.  They don't have to get paid in XRP - they can get paid in the form of fiat IOUs on their preferred gateway or FI.  In the case of Bitcoin, they have to hold the crypt for a lot longer! 

You didn't get my point. My point was that for a business to use Ripple they need to be paid in IOUs of some gateway (as in this case). If there is no liquidity than the business is screwed, because it can't receive any big payment avoiding that the customer will pay a lot more than traditional systems.
With Bitcoin is different, because there is only one conversion: BTC:USD, hence the liquidity is way more and there is no slippage problem (but there are other problems, such as fees of 3rd party to convert BTC to USD).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tulo said:

I was focusing on transferring money between gateways because it is the only way to use Ripple now. How do you think a bank is supposed to use Ripple? Tell me a suitable solution that doesn't involve IOUs to IOUs. I'm happy to hear. ILP is not valid as answer since it will be ready maybe in 2 years :)

You don't need ILP to do this. We don't have enough information, but Ripple Stream is maybe doing something similar without ILP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tulo said:

But I proposed many stuff (from better autobridge, to different fee escalation, a different pathfinding algorithm) but none cares

It's not true that "none cares". I don't recall your specific suggestions, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing about all suggestions for improvement.

However, it's simply impossible to implement every suggestion, if for no other reason because that takes time and time is a finite resource: working on A implies not being able to work on B. Which is fine if everyone agrees that A is more important, but... well... not everyone agrees.

Also, you seem like a talented coder yourself. And the code is available. If you feel your ideas would help then try to implement them - even a rough implementation will do. You don't need to wait for us or anyone else.

For example, you can code up the alternative path-finding algorithm you have in mind (in the language of your choice even) and show comparisons of your paths and those produced by the existing implementation, clearly demonstrating the superiority of your approach.

My point is that we welcome the feedback and we do listen carefully and. We may not always implement every suggestion, but we do think it through. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nikb, I think you're underestimating effort that is needed to build something like custom pathfinding. You're rippled expert and things may look easy to you. But for someone who isn't working 24/7 on ripple protocols/APIs and/or rippled it is a very formidable project. And the cost/benefit/risk ratios of any such side project is often not very attractive.

Just my 2 cents. Because you, Vinnie and some other Ripple devs sometimes implicitly expect too much from outside developers.

 

 

 

Edited by T8493

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T8493 said:

@nikb, I think you're underestimating effort that is needed to build something like custom pathfinding. You're rippled expert and things may look easy to you. But for someone who isn't working 24/7 on ripple protocols/APIs and/or rippled it is a very formidable project. And the cost/benefit/risk ratios of any such side project is often not very attractive.

Just my 2 cents. Because you, Vinnie and some other Ripple devs sometimes implicitly expect too much from outside developers.

I agree that it's not a "well, I was bored during lunch so I coded this silly thing up" kind of project.

I don't think I'm underestimating the effort needed - it's considerable but not unrealistic. But that's not the point.

The point was that suggestions are wonderful, but they don't magically translate into code.

It's unrealistic to expect that the rippled team will implement every suggestion for improvement, even if the suggestion is technically feasible. Heck, we don't implement every feature that we've internally come up with. Time considerations aside, there's a cost/benefit analysis associated with new features and changes. It's what software engineering is all about.

And I really don't think it's unrealistic or inappropriate to suggest to someone that complains that we ignore suggestions that would improve the protocol to at least attempt to implement those suggestions.

Take pathfinding, for example: if you had an idea for a pathfinding algorithm that was a lot better than the default and you coded it up, you could use it to your advantage or you could offer pathfinding as a service for a fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, nikb said:

It's not true that "none cares". I don't recall your specific suggestions, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing about all suggestions for improvement.

However, it's simply impossible to implement every suggestion, if for no other reason because that takes time and time is a finite resourc: working on A implies not being able to work on B. Which is fine if everyone agrees that A is more important, but... well... not everyone agrees.

Also, you seem like a talented coder yourself. And the code is available. If you feel your ideas would help then try to implement them - even a rough implementation will do. You don't need to wait for us or anyone else.

For example, you can code up the alternative path-finding algorithm you have in mind (in the language of your choice even) and show comparisons of your paths and those produced by the existing implementation, clearly demonstrating the superiority of your approach.

My point is that we welcome the feedback and we do listen carefully. We may not always implement every suggestion, but we do think it through.

I remember you were hearing for the autobridge, but the conclusion was that my idea was too hard to implement.

Tha pathfinding was too hard to implement and the circular payments are too hard to implement :)

I completely understand that the devs work in a company and there are priorities. But meanwhile I write here what I think are the problems for Ripple in the hope that someone will have time to at least read them and think about it.

About my coding skills: well, I actually sucks hard in coding :) and my work doesn't leave me enough time to work on other (very time consuming as pathfinding) project. I'd need one month just to start digging into rippled code. And the game isn't worth the candle.

25 minutes ago, nikb said:

Take pathfinding, for example: if you had an idea for a pathfinding algorithm that was a lot better than the default and you coded it up, you could use it to your advantage or you could offer pathfinding as a service for a fee.

That's exactly what I was thinking (https://forum.ripple.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8525&p=58724&hilit=external+path#p58724) but as I wrote in that topic there were some bugs in Ripple that I don't know if they were fixed, the non-presence of circular payments makes it useless for self advantage, and offering it as external service is not worth unless Ripple becomes really used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, your autobridging idea was to allow any currency to be the middle leg of the bridge, correct? If so, yes, that's more difficult to implement (for a number of technical reasons I'd be happy to talk about). It also may not necessarily align with the company's goals, which would, of course, be another consideration.

Your other ideas again rely on us implementing features that you think are important. But are they more important than the other features in the pipeline? Do they solve real issues that are affecting the network now?

If there are bugs, they should be reported and they will be fixed. As for new features, feel free to suggest them; we listen and will evaluate them. But we need to make decisions about how to invest resources based on the company priorities and our roadmap after analyzing the cost and benefits associated with each feature.

You may disagree with our assessment of how difficult something is and with our cost/benefit analysis. And that is your prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
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...