(And probably introduces more social attack vectors than it fixes, maybe. The point with Ripple is people should be selective in their relationship and not trust random outside arbitrators. )
Ohhhh, yeah, the peer-validation in Holochain is indeed handed to random outside arbitrators (the entry-hash’s neighbourhood peers, that is to say)… So yeah, you’re right I guess.
I guess my explanation is better (hahaha):
Note that in Ripple, both good and bad/fake networks can co-exist. It’s just that they can’t (or very minimally) overlap.
1 Like
Yes for Ripple.
1 Like
Very happy I got Ryan’s work across to you 
I got it from Miles Hingston in September 2012, and instantly had my eureka to redistribute tax via the credit lines. Followed by years of very few understanding any of what I tried to explain. Got better and better with time at explaining it in a way that I could get people from point A to point B.
1 Like
Yeah, actually I was just going to say the same. I believe if it wasn’t for you, I wouldn’t have had my eureka moment with Ripple (and would have forever relied on Holo-fuel to solve all of the world’s problems, which now I know is never going to happen)…
For me it’s mostly about building a foundation for the future private-currencies to flourish, in a peer-to-peer ecosystem, where the currencies compete to be more stable, resilient and reliable than the competition, resulting into a world where trading goods and services (and even real-estate) becomes the equivalent of trading casino chips (the ancap dream, if you will).
Sorry to ask, but have I reached at the right place?
Yes but those are all “metaphorical explanations”. You already understand it far better than those videos can explain it. The whitepaper-ish from last year is also pretty good, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3539063. The single rule in the protocol is that tax will continue to propagate as long as it can, taking path of least resistance. Very simple.
1 Like
About Ripple, @matslats says:
Yeah, I admit I misunderstood you. I guess what you mean by that is that Ripple relies on the premise that wealth just keeps moving back and forth in the network. And when that’s not the case (when only some few accounts are owed to, which owe to very few or none at all) then Ripple starts to break down. Am I correct in my take of your comment?
So if my balance is way above zero I may be able to trade it down, but if all my usual trading partners are also approaching their upper limits they won’t be able to sell me much.
One has to ask as to how in the real world might that scenario ever play out… By the way, in case you didn’t notice, it’s you who set the limit on how much you’ll be okay owing to your peer(s) (how much they can effectively sell to you), and not the other way around. So if you think your peer X can only ever provide you 200 units of service, and another peer Y can only ever provide you 500 units of service, then in case you possess 1000 units of service, and X and Y have already sold out everything to you that they possibly could, better find out other additional peers (accounts/businesses/opportunities) to trust and trade with. Simple. Plus (taking your note literally), the credit-line that exists is between you and you peer alone; and how can both be positive at once? How can I be owing you and you be owing me at once? I mean, after doing the mathematical subtraction, only one person owes another some smaller amount, simple. How can both ever end up positive?
The problem is a strawman, and inventing a brand-new solution for a problem that doesn’t exist isn’t worth the effort.
“Absolutely” is a big word, A-Man, it can cover multitudes of useful distinctions.
I’m glad you see the limits to current value in the progressively discreditable “mutual credit” terminology. However, I think your description of “Mutual Credit Accounting” on page 10 of your paper glosses and misses such useful distinctions.
I do agree that Ripple, as a credit/debit system, qualifies as “mutual credit”, but I see it more as chain of breakable links, not even equivalent to a cable, and far from a resilient network, further yet from anti-fragile.
1 Like
Any reasons for such a stance?
I think you do misunderstand.
I’m talking about collective trade imbalances, when you and all your friends have positive balances while other areas of the network are all negative. There’s no way in a mesh credit system to identify those ‘areas’ of the network so they can do the politics required to ensure that everyone can consume as much as they produce and vice versa
This is not a fatal flaw unless that system were the only one around and there were no other way to balance trade.
Note that I prefer the term ‘mesh credit’ because Ripple is so widely associated with the (now) fraudeulent DLT company.
1 Like
Now I see… Actually, that’s what makes me a wee bit uncomfortable about Ripple too… However, note that in my Ripple++ (Vril) implementation, that’s not a case, as there’s no “one balance” per person. Every person issues a promise with every person they wish to establish trade-trust with. So my dealings with you don’t end up affecting my dealings with Paul, for example. Would love it if you do a critical review of the Vril way…
Michael Linton created the LETS system or concept, and has worked on that since the 1980s I think. Ryan Fugger referenced him as an inspiration for multi-hop mutual credit, numerous times. From corresponding with Linton a few times, he does not see Ripple as a continuation of his work. I do though, I think “centralized” mutual credit is a half-finished concept and it was finished by the multi-hop mechanism that solves accountability.
1 Like
Maybe he’s right… Maybe it’s the end of his work! [Kidding… please don’t mind… And forgive me if my use of extremity offends]
Also memetically, since Holochain is a continuation, memetically, from Linton, and not Fugger, his ideas tend to dominate, memetically, on this particular forum. Why pqcdev flagged your post, most likely. I value the older foundation Ryan Fugger continued on, that goes back decades, and I also value the legacy that Ryan started 15 years ago.
1 Like
Alice ---------------- Bob ---------------- Carol ----------------------- David — ===== Participants
--------- => 50 ------------- => 50 --------------------=> 50 ------------------- ====== Flow
( -50) --------------- (0) ---------------------(0) ------------------------- (+ 50) ====== Worth
In this case, Alice made a transaction of 50 units to David.
Note that after this transaction, Bob can’t send any money to Carol (if Carol only trusts Bob with 50, which Bob already owes (to her) after Alice’s transaction)! Whoops.
[In the above scenario, Bob can very well have a positive worth too (if Alice already owed him some amount prior to the transaction to David), so Bob is well affluent to buy stuff from Carol, but cannot do so due to Carol having reached her max-limit with Bob]
Is that what you meant?
Why I see ripple as more chain than cable? Or their different fault issues?
The later, perhaps (or both maybe)…
Zoom? In 2 hours?
Otherwise busy until tomorrow afternoon (pacific)