Jump to content
zerocool

Bank of America's new patent

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, codiusrex said:

Because @Ripple still dumps no matter what.

BTW, AMEX also has a similar patent they published last year or the year prior. 

Any good news posted you always try to spin negative, I bet you bought at $3 and sold at .25 :biggrin::crazy::biggrin::crazy:

Share this post


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

Why are people not more excited about this?

No doubt this is good to see, but I wouldn't get too excited about it. Getting a patent for something and actually implementing it are two totally different things. Big companies get patents all of the time; the vast majority of these patents never see the light of day. They'll get patents for things that they are considering, even if there's only a 1% chance of actually doing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jag216 said:

Who owns the responsibility for transmitting packets of value across the ILP?

I would suspect that the responsibility is on the sender. ILP packets are designed to be small so the risk of loss is low. But it depends on how much you trust your connectors, how much value your send, and how quickly you want to send it. If any one packet is lost, the sender would be responsible for the loss. But they would stop trusting that connection and re-route the rest of the payments.

I see it as a trade off between speed of value transmission and risk of loss during transmission. Imagine trying to send $1M USD. Would you rather send it as a single $1M packet, 1 million USD packets worth $1 each, or 1B packets worth $0.001 USD each. If each packet takes 25 milliseconds to get to the destination, the single packet can get there nearly instantly,  but $1 packets will take ~7 hours and $.001 packet would take ~9 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jag216 said:

I don't understand how "protocol-level" value exchange that happens when sending value through ILP can ever touch "retail-level" exchange markets.

Thanks for the longer explanation in your post -- I feel like I'm starting to understand the patent a bit more now.

As far as how the ILP connectors touch the exchange markets, my understanding (which is probably riddled with holes) is this:

Exchange markets will be ILP connectors, at least initially, once ILP gains traction. I imagine xRapid partner exchanges will jump at the chance to provide xRapid-style payment service over ILP, and market makers will want to participate in those flows to profit from them. Those markets touch each other for the same reason that XRP is roughly the same price wherever you go. It has to be in order for any market to compete.

Effectively, an ILP connector is just an entity that holds two or more different currencies and is willing to buy an incoming payment and sell it at a profit for a separate currency. So if I'm a market maker on Bitstamp, I'm buying and selling standard market orders, and I'm also buying and selling flow payments for ILP while assisting in xRapid atomic transfers. It's all one party.

At first, I think of the ILP volume will be on xRapid exchanges because they'll offer market makers a one-stop-shop for all of the above payment types, but you may have some independent ILP connectors offering competing rates to the exchange flows for ILP. Note I said competing rates -- that's because ILP will always pick the most efficient payment path. So if I want to offer a spread as an independent connector, I'd better offer a tighter spread than the exchange connector. I'll only get your ILP payment if I can do it cheaper. In the event I'm offering something way lower than the rate on an exchange, arbitrage bots will swarm me to buy currencies cheap and sell them for a profit somewhere else. That's how price balancing will work (and how it works today). It's really a single system with lots of ways in, and one overall principle -- gotta stay cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jag216 said:

This patent is really fascinating, as it appears to allow both banks to maintain private sets of currency ledgers, perform the forex behind the scenes using their existing connections, effectively wash the transaction groups, send the distribution lists independently through electronic communication using a GAN, WAN or LAN, and then simultaneously transfer actual net value for the notices through a third party real-time net settlement tool - ILP, which can use a variety of trustless tokens to transfer value, but XRP is the fastest at the moment.

From the patent:

So the final outcome here, from my reading:

No need for banks to own XRP legally - either having value in custody and/or trusting market makers

No need to expose their internal transactions and books or wallets on the network

This allows banks to effectively create their own digital wallets to account for digital currencies and treat them all as if they were internal accounts - Including security and custody, etc. What is interesting here, is they will probably use their own internal stablecoin currencies to do this.

No need for regulatory clarity on this matter to start using it from day one, as the XRP utilized in transferring value across the ILP belongs to the protocol infrastructure, not the banks. The patent effectively internalizes the costs of exchange (but avoids xRapid) and then uses the messaging services of either xCurrent or some other secured communications rail (xCurrent, as I understand it, is NOT a blockchain product - it is a communications product) while simultaneously transferring the value packets (after both sides agree on KYC/AML compliance) via ILP.

Which is going to raise some very interesting court cases in the future. When data is transferred across a digital network, who owns the packets that you send? Are you giving license to Comcast or Verizon to pass through your data? Does it belong to you the entire time? Does it belong to the intended recipient? This may not matter a lot while sending information, but with you are sending packets of net worth that are unique and dropped packets means dropped value - who owns that? Who owns the responsibility for transmitting packets of value across the ILP?

This space is getting more fascinating and complicated by the week.

It is true that they aren't necessarily going to implement this right away - but the question to me is - is ILP ready to scale to this magnitude? It seems that we are talking about a considerable number of packets to send on a continuous basis.

How is packet value recycled in ILP? That's the part of this that I don't quite understand. Regular data moves and replicates and disappears and no one thinks about it again. Does ILP use the underlying currency and translate value into the expected digital ledger denominations on the fly? Do both parties simply need to say "Hey, I want to send you this currency and does ILP automatically say 'okay, we'll use this value for that currency in XRP and it will take this many packets and cost this much and based on network congestion it should take this many seconds, etc." Then what, when the net worth of the packets is converted is the XRP deallocated? There must be operating accounts that drive the ILP system

Because to my mind - please, correct me if I am wrong - a cryptocurrency - in order to exist - must belong to a wallet. It is not like paper money that can belong to a NULL wallet - it is a zero-sum game. Yes it can get sent to a wallet allocation no one has access to and be stranded, but it is stranded precisely because there is no XRP (or any digital currency) that is unowned. Every XRP is owned by somebody, even if that is a careless somebody or dead somebody. And I believe other cryptocurrencies all work this way as well, right? Every coin is in a wallet.

I've seen a lot of slide decks on ILP but this part really eludes me. 

My concern, I guess, and I don't mean this as FUD, maybe someone with more technical knowledge can clear this up...

If the XRP that is required to loop through ILP to transmit value to upper layers represented on the stack, and this is an automated process, it seems to me that the market value gets determined by those who use the system and transmit value back and forth, but that XRP is locked in and the value that gets traded within that loop is outside of retail and other markets. Is that right? I don't want to necessarily raise the whole issue of "secret ledger" again, but I don't understand how "protocol-level" value exchange that happens when sending value through ILP can ever touch "retail-level" exchange markets.

That doesn't mean that the ILP will not need more XRP as people discover how cheap it really is, and that the ILP's use of XRP will soon dwarf every over XRP use case if it becomes an international standard for exchanging value, but for the time being - if ILP really provides a viable way for banks to get around using RippleNet - well, I just don't know what that means in terms of retail exchange value of the coin - it makes valuation a whole lot more complicated than what I had ever considered.

ILP's use case of XRP seems like it is in an entirely different universe as compared to the speculative or store of value use case people are familiar with now. I feel like I'm trying to price watts of electricity for running an entire city based on the cost of lighting a few lightbulbs at a workbench with magnets and wire.

 

4 hours ago, EasterBunny said:

I would suspect that the responsibility is on the sender. ILP packets are designed to be small so the risk of loss is low. But it depends on how much you trust your connectors, how much value your send, and how quickly you want to send it. If any one packet is lost, the sender would be responsible for the loss. But they would stop trusting that connection and re-route the rest of the payments.

I see it as a trade off between speed of value transmission and risk of loss during transmission. Imagine trying to send $1M USD. Would you rather send it as a single $1M packet, 1 million USD packets worth $1 each, or 1B packets worth $0.001 USD each. If each packet takes 25 milliseconds to get to the destination, the single packet can get there nearly instantly,  but $1 packets will take ~7 hours and $.001 packet would take ~9 months.

 

2 hours ago, ADingoAteMyXRP said:

Thanks for the longer explanation in your post -- I feel like I'm starting to understand the patent a bit more now.

As far as how the ILP connectors touch the exchange markets, my understanding (which is probably riddled with holes) is this:

Exchange markets will be ILP connectors, at least initially, once ILP gains traction. I imagine xRapid partner exchanges will jump at the chance to provide xRapid-style payment service over ILP, and market makers will want to participate in those flows to profit from them. Those markets touch each other for the same reason that XRP is roughly the same price wherever you go. It has to be in order for any market to compete.

Effectively, an ILP connector is just an entity that holds two or more different currencies and is willing to buy an incoming payment and sell it at a profit for a separate currency. So if I'm a market maker on Bitstamp, I'm buying and selling standard market orders, and I'm also buying and selling flow payments for ILP while assisting in xRapid atomic transfers. It's all one party.

At first, I think of the ILP volume will be on xRapid exchanges because they'll offer market makers a one-stop-shop for all of the above payment types, but you may have some independent ILP connectors offering competing rates to the exchange flows for ILP. Note I said competing rates -- that's because ILP will always pick the most efficient payment path. So if I want to offer a spread as an independent connector, I'd better offer a tighter spread than the exchange connector. I'll only get your ILP payment if I can do it cheaper. In the event I'm offering something way lower than the rate on an exchange, arbitrage bots will swarm me to buy currencies cheap and sell them for a profit somewhere else. That's how price balancing will work (and how it works today). It's really a single system with lots of ways in, and one overall principle -- gotta stay cheap.

fk me, i get this and it is weirdly exciting. The only thing is where am i going to find a meme for weirdly exciting and deep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Benchmark said:

Most people here are in extreme disbelief about everything.

But it's quite obvious what's happening, XRP is becoming the standard.

It sure seems like it BUT i think its always wise to try and dissect info and try to figure things out. XRP isnt named.. but the question i have is exactly what is this patent for and IS there a way to glean the benefits listed on the patent (mainly no prefunding of nostro/vostro) WITHOUT using xrp? i thought for the instant settlemnt they had to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, XRPboi said:

I'm warn out on good news. I want to see this asset actually used and reflect its fundamental value. 

So do I, but given the US administration's lack of support for cryptos in general, including XRP, they might curtail its use by FIs both domestically and abroad, or at least discourage its use given the facts that US wants to maintain the dollar as a global reserve currency, our country has tons of debt, a number of politicians in our country see BTC as a potential threat and by extension other cryptos as well, including XRP, and the US's lack of control over cryptos' rising popularity, adoption might lead to diminishment of US policy influence both domestically and abroad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, enrique11 said:

So do I, but given the US administration's lack of support for cryptos in general, including XRP, they might curtail its use by FIs both domestically and abroad, or at least discourage its use given the facts that US wants to maintain the dollar as a global reserve currency, our country has tons of debt, a number of politicians in our country see BTC as a potential threat and by extension other cryptos as well, including XRP, and the US's lack of control over cryptos' rising popularity, adoption might lead to diminishment of US policy influence both domestically and abroad. 

I agree, but given Mnuchin’s insistence that they want to create a level playing field and not hold back technology,  I think things are looking positive for XRP specifically. The US will be one of the last to regulate for sure, but it’ll happen.

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...