Official Kraken Twitter acc asking about Ripple vs XRP

[EnchanterIO]

 

[Guest]

[Professor Hantzen]

I read a bunch of twitter threads on this from two Kraken accounts and also Jesse's (CEO Kraken).  It struck me that they seem to be wilfully playing dumb.  Despite being given very clear direct answers to their questions, they persist in pretending that confusion remains.  No idea to what end.  Seems strange to open margin trading for XRP and then do a weird anti-PR job on it.  The lack of professionalism in Kraken's responses was surprising too.  Several instances of customers vowing not to use them any longer as a result.

[jn_r]

35 minutes ago, Professor Hantzen said:

I read a bunch of twitter threads on this from two Kraken accounts and also Jesse's (CEO Kraken).  It struck me that they seem to be wilfully playing dumb.  Despite being given very clear direct answers to their questions, they persist in pretending that confusion remains.  No idea to what end.  Seems strange to open margin trading for XRP and then do a weird anti-PR job on it.  The lack of professionalism in Kraken's responses was surprising too.  Several instances of customers vowing not to use them any longer as a result.

I can see his point though. The protocol has always been the Ripple protocol. It is in the source code (check https://github.com/ripple/rippled/tree/381a1b948b06d9526cc73f14cfc69635fabf8605/src/ripple/protocol), it is in the naming of the daemon (rippled), etc. Jesse knows Ripple/XRP from the start as Ripple and you also probably still call it ripple. What is the name of the protocol then? XRPLedger protocol?

edit: to be clear, there is in this case confusion about the naming, I am not talking about who created the XRP. That's another source of confusion, but people tend to mix the creation discussion with the name discussion. (Which makes it altogether even more confusing, even more so if they also mix in the security discussion)

Edited December 31, 2018 by jn_r

[Guest]

X Ripple Protocol (XRP)

No escaping an association. I really don't get what the beef is though – these "XRPcommunity" folks on Twitter are just brainwashed lunatics. If some want to call XRP "ripples", honestly who cares?! That was the idea of the protocol, that one could "ripple" money through trustlines etc.

Weird neurotic behavior, IMO.

[Guest]

I get it, they're different but I suppose it depends on how you perceive the discrepancy. Some people are sticklers and  often time have the right to be. 

For example, if I go to a restaurant and without looking at the menu say, "I'll have a coke.", but get Pepsi, it doesn't really bother me. Yes, they're different in many ways. I know the difference, they know I said coke and I do prefer Coca-Cola to Pepsi but I don't feel neglected or cheated. I won't send it back or give the server a hard time.

My mother, on the other hand, gets all bent out of shape. I'm not even joking. To her It's as if the server doesn't care about the customer's preferences. She has on numerous occasions scolded the server and sent it back. And I just keep sipping away at my drink. 

What can you say, she's not wrong but, who cares. Surprisingly, some do. 

However, the Nipple(XRP) was not professional and it does show Kraken either didn't think it through or doesn't care if others think their crass. And the same can be said for the Kraken is this or that. 

Oh well, in a few days, they'll both be on to some other issue that requires their attention and in 6 months someone will be able to dig up the thread and use it against them. Fun! 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Guest

[Professor Hantzen]

Ripple could certainly have been clearer in announcing the name change(s) at the time they made them, but the current documentation makes it pretty clear what the names of everything are and this has been out for a long time now.  It was also pointed out immediately to Kraken & Jesse after they posed their questions:

https://developers.ripple.com/consensus.html#the-xrp-ledger-protocol-consensus-and-validation

Protocol:  XRP Ledger Protocol
Network:  XRP Ledger Network
Ledger:  XRP Ledger
Asset:  XRP

(It's pretty straightforward...!)

And there are many instances of pieces of software having legacy, outdated names embedded within their code or in application names in the same way the XRP Ledger server software is called "rippled" owing to its past.  It's disingenuous of Kraken to pretend this is uncommon or confusing.  For example, a huge chunk of the macOS API methods have been referred to as "NS<method>" for decades because of its early basis on the NextStep OS Steve Jobs brought back in from his NextStep company (and based the new macOS on), when he rejoined Apple in 1997.  What would people think if a prominent macOS company started haranguing Apple suggesting they either change their name to NextStep to clear up any remaining confusion resulting from this legacy code?  It might not be exactly the same situation, but the silliness of it rings true to me.

It feels more like Kraken/Jesse is desperate to exert some kind of control or influence over Ripple through this odd spat.  I wonder if it reveals Kraken has been largely cut out of a pie that's forming and they're regretful.  Jesse was on Ripples board and left in a huff when Ripple was significantly smaller and less likely to succeed.  Maybe they have some knowledge of what's coming next and that's behind this strange drive to try go back and recreate the past.

[jn_r]

40 minutes ago, Professor Hantzen said:

Ripple could certainly have been clearer in announcing the name change(s) at the time they made them, but the current documentation makes it pretty clear what the names of everything are and this has been out for a long time now.  It was also pointed out immediately to Kraken & Jesse after they posed their questions:

https://developers.ripple.com/consensus.html#the-xrp-ledger-protocol-consensus-and-validation

Protocol:  XRP Ledger Protocol
Network:  XRP Ledger Network
Ledger:  XRP Ledger
Asset:  XRP

(It's pretty straightforward...!)

And there are many instances of pieces of software having legacy, outdated names embedded within their code or in application names in the same way the XRP Ledger server software is called "rippled" owing to its past.  It's disingenuous of Kraken to pretend this is uncommon or confusing.  For example, a huge chunk of the macOS API methods have been referred to as "NS<method>" for decades because of its early basis on the NextStep OS Steve Jobs brought back in from his NextStep company (and based the new macOS on), when he rejoined Apple in 1997.  What would people think if a prominent macOS company started haranguing Apple suggesting they either change their name to NextStep to clear up any remaining confusion resulting from this legacy code?  It might not be exactly the same situation, but the silliness of it rings true to me.

It feels more like Kraken/Jesse is desperate to exert some kind of control or influence over Ripple through this odd spat.  I wonder if it reveals Kraken has been largely cut out of a pie that's forming and they're regretful.  Jesse was on Ripples board and left in a huff when Ripple was significantly smaller and less likely to succeed.  Maybe they have some knowledge of what's coming next and that's behind this strange drive to try go back and recreate the past.

I like the way it is clearly stated above. Unfortunately this and the link you provided are just some of the places on a very big space where statements about the protocol are being made and it might take a while and perhaps some more word fights to make this the new standard.

I also had to do a good search in the twitter jungle threads to find where it then actually was proposed that it should be XRP Ledger (XRP), but I found it (here) :-) And that also leads me to the next point, why does Kraken/Jesse say the convention is <protocol> <asset>? I think that is where he is wrong, the convention (also on the kraken website) is <descriptive name> <asset>. Take Lumen <XLM>,  Lumen is by no means the name of the protocol. As is US Dollar not the name of a protocol, but the name of the asset, ISO-coded as USD.

In that regard, I think the right question is, what is the descriptive name for XRP, or how do we call XRP?  

 

 

[Professor Hantzen]

1 hour ago, jn_r said:

I like the way it is clearly stated above. Unfortunately this and the link you provided are just some of the places on a very big space where statements about the protocol are being made and it might take a while and perhaps some more word fights to make this the new standard.

I also had to do a good search in the twitter jungle threads to find where it then actually was proposed that it should be XRP Ledger (XRP), but I found it (here) :-) And that also leads me to the next point, why does Kraken/Jesse say the convention is <protocol> <asset>? I think that is where he is wrong, the convention (also on the kraken website) is <descriptive name> <asset>. Take Lumen <XLM>,  Lumen is by no means the name of the protocol. As is US Dollar not the name of a protocol, but the name of the asset, ISO-coded as USD.

In that regard, I think the right question is, what is the descriptive name for XRP, or how do we call XRP?

Yes, that <protocol> <asset> thing is applied very inconsistently on Kraken's website and correspondence.  Along with Lumens and some others, even Ethereum is variously referred to as Ether (ETH) and Ethereum (ETH) on different parts of the site and in correspondence.  That's a confusion between <token name> <token code>, and <protocol name> <token code>.  They appear to have no trouble referring to EOS as "EOS (EOS)", so why not "XRP (XRP)"?  (Or "XRP Ledger (XRP)" if they want to point out the protocol name?)

It's also clear from the threads that Kraken etc are very knowledgable on (at least their version of...) the precise history of Ripple the company and the asset XRP.  The way they're asking these questions, then immediately disagreeing with the obvious and authoritative answers, appear to be baiting Ripple into an argument so they can then go on the attack and recount the history as they see it in order to make a particular point.  I don't accept the explanation that they simply don't understand and wish to have clarity.  That could be achieved in a single private query.  The only reason to go over this publicly is to cause a fuss.  They ask for official clarification from Ripple, then argue with them about their answer - obviously this will create more confusion.

It should be painfully obvious now what Ripple wants to refer to these things as, and given they are the organisation primarily behind developing the thing I don't see why anyone would have a reason to argue with it.

Personally, I actually think referring to XRP as "ripples" makes sense, has solid historical reasons and sounds nice.  That Ripple the company wishes to rename XRP/Ripples to simply XRP, presumably to remove themselves more from the picture surrounding the "it's a security" nonsense, would be a tactical move that intends to help protect the technology from unfair regulation.  Does Kraken want the regulation to be unfair?  Yeah, I'd rather call XRP's "ripples", but I'd much rather the technology was unhampered by unfair regulation than it have a particular name, and if referring to it more simply could help that even a tiny bit, I'll call them "XRP's".  And if I was running an exchange, and I was concerned about communicating about my products clearly and having my customers understand me, I wouldn't have a public argument about the name of an asset with the people largely responsible for developing the thing.  I'd ask them in private, and accept their response.  Especially if it was obvious those developers are referring to the asset differently to in the past, in order to make everyone's lives easier, including mine...

[jn_r]

26 minutes ago, Professor Hantzen said:

Personally, I actually think referring to XRP as "ripples" makes sense, has solid historical reasons and sounds nice.  That Ripple the company wishes to rename XRP/Ripples to simply XRP, presumably to remove themselves more from the picture surrounding the "it's a security" nonsense, would be a tactical move that intends to help protect the technology from unfair regulation.  Does Kraken want the regulation to be unfair?  Yeah, I'd rather call XRP's "ripples", but I'd much rather the technology was unhampered by unfair regulation than it have a particular name, and if referring to it more simply could help that even a tiny bit, I'll call them "XRP's".  And if I was running an exchange, and I was concerned about communicating about my products clearly and having my customers understand me, I wouldn't have a public argument about the name of an asset with the people largely responsible for developing the thing.  I'd ask them in private, and accept their response.  Especially if it was obvious those developers are referring to the asset differently to in the past, in order to make everyone's lives easier, including mine...

The power of words.. In this case - as an exchange - you have to choose if you want to help Ripple with the regulation by calling it XRP's, or you do not want to help Ripple with the regulation and call it ripples. I do hope the security stuff gets settled soon, so this will become a non-discussion. In the meantime, for words' sake, lets call it 'X R P'