Ripple's real competition?

[cmbartley]

Hyperledger Project Looks at Options to Build Blockchain Technology with IBM, DTCC, SWIFT, and Others

Perhaps HyperLedger is Ripple's actual competition...

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/hyperledger-project-looks-at-options-to-build-blockchain-technology-with-ibm-dtcc-swift-and-others-1455127292?utm_content=bufferd15aa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Guest]

Ripple has actually contributed code to the project:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/02/linux-foundation-s-hyperledger-project-announces-30-founding

Quote

Global Business Leaders Contribute to Hyperledger

Since announcing the intent to form in December, the Hyperledger Project has received proposed code and technology contributions from several companies, including Blockstream, Digital Asset, IBM and Ripple. Other community members are contemplating contributions of their own.

I don't think the Hyperledger project is a competitor at all in the normal sense of the word. I think it's going to be a toolkit and software for running and modifying a distributed ledger and consensus network to do whatever you want it to do.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Guest

[rippleric]

So if Hyperledger is open-source, How does DAH and other partners benefit from building and using this DLT?? Especially if they are the only ones using it?

Edited February 11, 2016 by rippleric

[JoelKatz]

One possible plan for the project is to build a set of tools that could be assembled to form private/permissioned blockchain/ledger systems to meet a variety of use cases. Participants could, for example, build a proprietary blockchain solution around this toolkit. The project could also produce various functional units (such as optimized storage, smart contracts, or a reference consensus implementation) that participants could use to build proprietary blockchain systems.

[cmbartley]

33 minutes ago, JoelKatz said:

One possible plan for the project is to build a set of tools that could be assembled to form private/permissioned blockchain/ledger systems to meet a variety of use cases. Participants could, for example, build a proprietary blockchain solution around this toolkit. The project could also produce various functional units (such as optimized storage, smart contracts, or a reference consensus implementation) that participants could use to build proprietary blockchain systems.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Maybe they've pivoted some this talk suggests they're competing with Ripple specifically on settlement but without a native currency. Moreover, sounds like they'd have a hidden ledger which banks might prefer to smart XRPers being able to divine and track a bank's Ripple wallet transactions... unless they've incorporated Ripple ILP code into their stack, which would be great...: 

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by cmbartley

[T8493]

50 minutes ago, cmbartley said:

Moreover, sounds like they'd have a hidden ledger which banks might prefer to smart XRPers being able to divine and track a bank's Ripple wallet transactions..

Well, if smart XRPers can track transactions, then the competing banks can do the same on private ledger. And competing banks are much more resourceful than smart XRPers.

[thinlyspread]

I really like what IBM and Hyperledger are doing, and this focus towards "decoupling" and the modularisation of distributed ledger technologies. Fits perfectly with the IoV and what Ripple are aiming at with Interledger.

[Guest]

big lie on his slide: bitcoin confirmation: 10-60 mins, ripple: 10 seconds,  hyperledger: 200-400ms.

that should be 2-10 seconds for ripple, quite a difference!

and hyperledger's claim is way too optimistic, considering ping times can be close to 400 ms, and that's just for the tcp roundtrip. I may assume the protocol requires multiple steps from payment initiation to confirmation, possibly even involves a chain of multiple nodes, as i see in his drawing, so it should at least be a multitude of ping times.

https://wondernetwork.com/pings

Edited February 11, 2016 by Guest

[Mercury]

8 hours ago, tomxcs said:

Ripple has actually contributed code to the project:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/02/linux-foundation-s-hyperledger-project-announces-30-founding

I don't think the Hyperledger project is a competitor at all in the normal sense of the word. I think it's going to be a toolkit and software for running and modifying a distributed ledger and consensus network to do whatever you want it to do.

Remember that there are shades of differing degrees between the two Hyperledgers. One was acquired by Digital Assets (along with its business goals) and there is the Hyperledger trademark Digital Assets gifted to the Linux Foundation (along with some source code). Although in code they might be the same (not sure if Digital Assets retains control over some of the assets), the end goal is not. One was a competing business to Ripple (somewhat), the other is a open sourced tool kit for others to build upon.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Mercury

[yxxyun]

Another private blockchain platform,  R3 was saved by this project.

[tommytrain]

I still refer to Meher Roy's original whitepaper to help understand certain things blockchain - 

[Guest Haydentiff]

6 hours ago, tommytrain said:

I still refer to Meher Roy's original whitepaper to help understand certain things blockchain - 

This is a great paper. Thanks for sharing!

[Hodor]

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:49 AM, lucky said:

big lie on his slide: bitcoin confirmation: 10-60 mins, ripple: 10 seconds,  hyperledger: 200-400ms.

that should be 2-10 seconds for ripple, quite a difference!

and hyperledger's claim is way too optimistic, considering ping times can be close to 400 ms, and that's just for the tcp roundtrip. I may assume the protocol requires multiple steps from payment initiation to confirmation, possibly even involves a chain of multiple nodes, as i see in his drawing, so it should at least be a multitude of ping times.

https://wondernetwork.com/pings

I agree with this assessment.  It is widely known there is an absolute limitation for how many transactions per second bitcoin can handle, and I know I've seen some similar upper limitation based on the way that Ripple validators currently are configured, but I don't think it is accurately represented in this at all - My "send" transactions are measured and responded to in less than a second on the Ripple network (round trip back to my browser makes it about one second).