Jump to content
BobWay

Hi! I'm Bob

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, BobWay said:

One of the things I've realized recently is that my greatest utility in increasing the adoption and value of XRP (and rippling in general) is in explaining to other just how well thought out the system is. I hope I can start doing that here.

@BobWay Wow man..., that's what you are certainly doing here! And exactly what most of us needed here as well. Thank you very much for answering to my post so extensively!

Edited by DucPeter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BobWay said:

I'm not sure if that ever got implement.

Not to my knowledge, rippled will just mark peers on different chains as "insane" and probably drop or replace them after a while.

6 hours ago, BobWay said:

Really question EVERYTHING you've ever seen in a press release.

Do you consider xCurrent or xRapid to be "blockchain technology"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, LilBender said:

[picture of text without source]

This does not contradict me. You can open a gateway for XRP (this is what all off-chain exchanges do) and the back-end of such a system can be realized with a network of rippled servers. These would still not be "real" XRP, but XRP IOUs held in custody by the gateway (or "bridges" in the sense of David's tweet).

Just now, Tinyaccount said:

Didn’t Bob or someone just a while ago say that there were occasionally Testnet trans leaked onto the Ledger but not being valid and so ignored...  but still now part of the record?

Only if someone used the same account on the testnet and the mainnet. In that case it is possible that a transaction that's valid on one network gets processed (but rejected) by the other network (costing a fee and thus ending up in the record) instead of being rejected as invalid outright (like a transaction from an account that doesn't exist on the server's network - no need to do any work and nobody to take a fee from anyways).

Edited by Sukrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sukrim said:

This does not contradict me. You can open a gateway for XRP (this is what all off-chain exchanges do) and the back-end of such a system can be realized with a network of rippled servers. These would still not be "real" XRP, but XRP IOUs held in custody by the gateway (or "bridges" in the sense of David's tweet).

Picture of text is not without source

it is part of a twitter conversation by DS. The time stamp is there, you may go verify the entire conversation yourself

If you cannot be respectful, please refrain from answering me

Besides, the question was for Bob, not you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

8 minutes ago, Sukrim said:

[picture of text without source]

 

4 minutes ago, LilBender said:

Picture of text is not without source

it is part of a twitter conversation by DS. The time stamp is there, you may go verify the entire conversation yourself

 

Edited by Rey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BobWay said:

No, I didn't mean to imply that. What turned out to be regulatorily impossible was creating a compliant "gateway" business in the original sense we used the word gateway.

A "gateway" in that sense was effectively an entity acting as a bank on Ripple. These entities would take real world fiat deposits through the local banking system. Then they would "issue fiat balances" (AKA: credit your account) on the Ripple ledger.

You can rationalize them as a "gateway" between the traditional banking system and Ripple's ledger through which money flowed. However, the real reason they were called gateways is because lawyers told us, "You can't say 'bank'. Nor can you say 'like a bank'" So they needed a new name. Hence the naming rationalization. Impenetrable naming of our concepts has been one of Ripple biggest barriers to adoption.

Compliant gateway business became "impossible" to launch because regulatorialy they fall under a class of "money transmission" business. It turns out this type of company is regulated independently by every state in the US and by every country internationally. They require separate licenses and posting significant financial bonds in every territory.

That is one of the reasons that Ripple pivoted towards actual licensed banks rather than attempting to encourage the creation of new gateways.

 

@lucky This topic is really worth its own thread. If you are still interested in the topic, please create one and invite me to comment.

I don't think the internal exchange is a dead end and I don't think it will be removed. In fact it has some significant advantages over the current xRapid architecture. However explaining why takes more than a couple of sentences.

Hi @BobWay thanks for this post,  along with David's quote about "xRapid not being aimed at banks", it got me thinking further about another question:

xRapid is a great product, but my personal opinion is that it still has too many steps for a bank to use XRP. it works well within the use case of NBFIs though. 

Your description of the original use case for gateways is very enlightening. I understand that it is financially and logistically and from a regulatory perspective very difficult for Ripple to maintain these gateways. But what if banks take responsibility of their own gateways and do their bridging directly on the XRPL DEX?

We know xCurrent can now settle with XRP, so could this be a possible workflow in the future?

 

Thanks again in advance. 

 

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...