Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Young-Catholic said:

Hi Lumpy. I'm 4000% with you on that fork idea. I actually spent the recent days strongly thinking about this, especially in light of the recent events. Enough is enough.

I'm a long time XRPL fan and a long time Ripple hater. I always thought that the XRPL was one of the best blockchain out there by large and I also always thought that its main weakness was the Ripple company. 

I 100% agree with you when you doubt whether a "XRP community" still exists. Over the last years, I've seen a lot of individual jumping into the XRP train, with no concern with the tech itself, but rather because of the crazy speculations around Ripple and similar NWO jackshit theories. Well, this phenomenon was to be seen especially on Twitter, obviously.

Over the last years, I kept saying that XRP would only organically raise in value if there's more independant devs creating usecases and services around the ledger. I always supported and lauded the few independant XRPL devs such as the great Wietse. It's a pity that there aren't more of them though. The XRPL had cutting edge characteristics that, for instance, foreshadowed what we recently saw in the DeFi space, i.e. its native DEX. 

I'm still baffled to this day when I see how the community has shifted over the recent years into a deluded bunch of Ripple fanbois, with close to no true interest for the tech itself. I'm baffled that some people can't even fathom a fork or even to develop the chain without the Ripple Corp. People who question the very idea by saying "who is gonna sign partnerships with banks and govs" really don't understand the state of the international monetary system, both private and public, IMO. I guess they'll be quite surprized to read some of the feedbacks of certain Ripple "customers" in the near future. Moreover, I believe such people aren't interessted anymore (if ever) in the core values or in the main opportunities brought by cryptocurrencies. 

Admittedly, I can't code at all, my professional activity being marketing and technical translation. I did however developed a crypto-related project with my brother (who is specialized in IA trading systems and works for a well-known french bank group).

In any case, count me in.

Addendum : for what's worth, I believe a fork would present the opportunity to implement some very needed or better features to the DLT, for instance smart contacts and private transactions. Yes, private transactions, which was proposed a long time ago on this very chat by a wise community member who was already shut down by some early Ripple fanbois back then.

 

Thks for your feedback.

The fork would be much more obvious and natural if XRP and the ledger were solving (or at least planning to solve) another real problem as that of intra bank settlements adressed by Ripple. Although the truth is that even Ripple's clients are not using XRP at all for their use cases. Or very very few are. 

As an example, the BCH fork was obvious. Bitcoin drifted slowly from its original purpose to be electronic cash. Victim of its own success, the network was more congested and its fees started to increase, wiping out any possibility to transact micro amount, or making small transactions more expensive than what your bank or another payment provider would offer. Anyone can say anything about Roger Ver, but his attempt was legit and above all logic.

Initially, the XRP Ledger was designed to offer an alternative solution to the Byzantine General Problem. The low-latency of its consensus algorithm was/ still is the hedge or competitve advantage of the protocol in the ecosystem.

Imho two main problems explained the situation in which we are today:

  1. Communication
  2. Ownership of the native token

On 1, the communication was awkward and people, including this community, never distinguishes clearly the tech from the company. As an example, the initial protocol was called The Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (https://ripple.com/files/ripple_consensus_whitepaper.pdf). Then the Ripple protocol became the XRP Ledger and Ripple a corporation. That brought confusion among the community and developers. Many examples on the xrpchat can highlight that.

On 2, the company (Ripple) decides to take ownership of the native token. As an illustration, it would be the same as Uniswap creating the ETH network then creating Uniswap while taking ownership of ETH. As Uniswap, Ripple was initially created to develop one use case built on top of the tech. The thing is the company took ownership of the native token and sold them to finance its development. The security narrative is so obvious. This transfer of ownership was probably what transformed an original great breakthrough into a confusing state, with one decentralised network of which its native token belongs to a company that uses partially it (the decentralised network) for a specific use case. Jesus! That's not a story for twitter : )

Ayway, the story has always confused people, explaining, maybe, why the XRP Ledger struggles to convince developers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's time we, the XRP community, fork the XRP ledger. Hive is a good example of a successful community-led fork (fork of Steemit): https://decrypt.co/23854/hive-decentralized-fork-outperforms-ste

Ripple *publishes* a recommended UNL.  So do a variety of other entities.  Anyone running a validator can use that UNL, modify that UNL, or totally ignore that UNL. I will not take the bait and e

First we'd need a comprehensive plan. A transitionary period where participants switch over or re-point their UNLs etc. Would you burn tokens owned by Ripple/Founders etc? ALL of them? Some? 

Posted Images

I am quite surprised this is not a more pressing topic of discussion. I believe in a similar situation in most currencies - where the "team" was mired in such murky issues - the community would fork. 

The usefulness of a fork is surely to disassociate XRP from Ripple and rather than tangle with Ripple's XRP tokens and possibly the SEC a fresh start seems obvious. Otherwise everyone will forever make claims about Ripple/XRP and complications. 

There are certainly barriers here. For one XRP does not have a natural class of volunteer developers as far as a I know. It seems to be maintained mostly by the company? If this is the case then someone needs to become the lead developer. This would be quite the responsibility albeit one that comes with prestige and status potentially. Does the community have someone who knows rippled codebase and whatnot? I think the general mechanics of consensus, UNLs, and so on could be solved with discussion over time - maybe some XIPs? - but the maintainer is key. 

In terms of rewarding nodes/UNLs maybe a small cut of transaction fees or a treasury like you find in Diem or various DeFi projects. Or we can examine what they do over at the "sister" project at Stellar. 

Anyway it's a cool idea. I'm a super long-term lurker and fan of XRP and always felt this would happen. The idea of a truly decentralised XRP is pretty badass. 

Also we can have fun with some names:

XRPC - XRP Classic

XRPL - XRP Lite

TXRP - True XRP

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, pje said:

I am quite surprised this is not a more pressing topic of discussion. I believe in a similar situation in most currencies - where the "team" was mired in such murky issues - the community would fork. 

The usefulness of a fork is surely to disassociate XRP from Ripple and rather than tangle with Ripple's XRP tokens and possibly the SEC a fresh start seems obvious. Otherwise everyone will forever make claims about Ripple/XRP and complications. 

There are certainly barriers here. For one XRP does not have a natural class of volunteer developers as far as a I know. It seems to be maintained mostly by the company? If this is the case then someone needs to become the lead developer. This would be quite the responsibility albeit one that comes with prestige and status potentially. Does the community have someone who knows rippled codebase and whatnot? I think the general mechanics of consensus, UNLs, and so on could be solved with discussion over time - maybe some XIPs? - but the maintainer is key. 

In terms of rewarding nodes/UNLs maybe a small cut of transaction fees or a treasury like you find in Diem or various DeFi projects. Or we can examine what they do over at the "sister" project at Stellar. 

Anyway it's a cool idea. I'm a super long-term lurker and fan of XRP and always felt this would happen. The idea of a truly decentralised XRP is pretty badass. 

Also we can have fun with some names:

XRPC - XRP Classic

XRPL - XRP Lite

TXRP - True XRP

 

Wasn't the XRP fork called XLM? What's even happening with this discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yxxyun said:

But we need a better distribute strategy for XRP.

Could we not just copy what Stellar did? 

Does anyone know much about the history of how Jed distributed lumens and any potential issues that arose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First we'd need a comprehensive plan. A transitionary period where participants switch over or re-point their UNLs etc.

Would you burn tokens owned by Ripple/Founders etc? ALL of them? Some? 

Then once you have all the details together and distributed to current participants, a date, a step by step guide, and all new conventions explained and detailed, you have to convince a bunch of very influential folks (realistically) – and then actually do the damn thing on-time and budget! 

It's possible. I like the idea. Flare Networks is an inspiration. But it needs real work and organising. Maybe even funding? What about the XRPL Foundation (https://xrpl.org)? Are they really for the XRP tech/community, or biased towards Ripple and its millionaires/billionaires club? Personally I believe most of the so-called neutral/independent entities are simply more "nodes" of Ripple. Take Coil for example. They have no real business; it's an interesting science experiment but based on "funding" by Ripple (but really, by us, the market buyers). Do they get to keep their XRP? Would they even switch to a new "fork"/network?

Would be very interesting for sure. Maybe the first steps would be putting out the feelers, getting some feedback, doing surveys, and so on.

What about on-chain voting? How do upgrades get done currently? Would it be like a software upgrade? I know Tezos can do some pretty amazing things with upgrades without any possibility of forking, but I am not sure the XRPL is capable of that.

On a fun, hypothetical note:
 – I like the idea of burning the Founder allocations completely. They have acted at least dishonestly and the optics are very bad.
 – I like the idea of REDUCING Ripple's stash massively, maybe to 1-2 billion? If XRP is oh so useful, then BUY IT for god's sake!
 – I like the idea of changing the naming of XRP/Ripples/etc. Before Ripple it was OpenCoin (later Ripple / Ripple Credits). The idea being, it's an OPEN system (or even LETS mutual credit system) as per the original Ripplepay (Ryan Fugger), before it was hijacked by Ripple (Labs) for corporate purposes. What about going back to that? Something like... XOC (X Open Coin – the X still for X amount, or an international x-border ISO designation).

Nice thread! :)B)

Edited by thinlyspread
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lumpy said:

The fork would be much more obvious and natural if XRP and the ledger were solving (or at least planning to solve) another real problem as that of intra bank settlements adressed by Ripple. Although the truth is that even Ripple's clients are not using XRP at all for their use cases. Or very very few are. 

I don't understand this sentiment. ALL legit crypto has an (admittedly sketchy) "digital gold" i.e. limited supply quality of some kind. If bitcoin has that narrative and nothing else useful, and attracts BILLIONS in flows regularly, and yet is TERRIBLE for p2p payments (as intended by Satoshi), why not XRP too?! Once we have some basis for buying and holding an asset, then it's easier to get communities to develop on it (horse, cart). One reason very few (certainly institutional) investors buy into XRP is precisely for this reason; Ripple screw with the markets, cause bad optics, and hog the wealth and development aspects while CLAIMING the market is independent to shield themselves. 

I am not anti-Ripple – but if they are being honest about how great XRP is for THEIR use case, then why don't they BUY it! That's how we work out its cost-effectiveness. Otherwise, they are hypocrits. They are doing business on 100% subsidies. They are NOT "stewards" or custodians of the asset, they are parasitic on it, because the funding comes from outside Ripple. 

So – I agree that very few clients use ODL thus far, and a tiny fracton of the total money flow (esp. when compared to Larsen's/Garlinghouse's sales!). But why wouldn't they be buying/holding XRP in the first place? Because they're worried about its status, and about Ripple's influence, IMO. I am not saying get rid of Ripple, I am saying... come on, let's make this "less horrible" for the ecosystem! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, yugioh said:

I think everyone here needs to understand this clearly.
There's no point in an XRP without Ripple.
Ripple is the only company that can adopt XRP internationally.
Ripple is the only organization that uses XRP in its products.
I think XRP without Ripple is no different from Limoncoin.

That's the "security" argument in a nut-shell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a return to the spirit of Fugger's Ripple/Opencoin and maybe a LETS system would be the new focus, thereby differentiating a fork from Ripple the company and their banking use-cases. We should not forget Ripple's banking turn was not the original vision and came a bit later (2014/5?). Before that Ripple had been conceived and developed as a way to trade Bitcoin in a fairly seamless manner among trusted nodes I believe and then a token was created where the seamlessness and speed would be a feature of a novel cryptocurrency (faster, etc.). I am sure some of you old schoolers have a better handle on that history, but certainly XRP did not always mean RippleNet, Coil, ODL, etc. 

A quick note on on-chain voting - I think most DeFi projects would do this on Snapshot these days.

Edited by pje
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pje said:

to the spirit of Fugger's Ripple/Opencoin and maybe a LETS system would be the new focus

Just for clarity, I'm not necessarily saying this was/is the project's intention, but this was the original conception, and a long-lost (failed?) use case. But it was more a comment just to show that the root of this technology goes beyond Ripple/ODL/remittance etc.

3 minutes ago, pje said:

conceived and developed as a way to trade Bitcoin in a fairly seamless manner among trusted nodes, via exchanges

This is a strong point. Let's not forget, the DEX (distributed exchange) was/is one the of the primary features of XRPL. It's an amazing technical achievement and the first DEX in crypto. Sadly, also mostly unused. (I am hoping FXRP+FLR can remedy this or David's stablecoin proposal, but nothing seems to ever materialise for the DEX!).

And as you say, the use case many of us have *personally experienced* is XRP's amazing speed, especially going between connected exchanges. 

5 minutes ago, pje said:

A quick note on on-chain voting - I think most DeFi projects would do this on Snapshot these days.

Right, like Flare I guess. But it's worth noting Tezos's method. 

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.