Talk:Ripple (payment protocol)/Archive 1

Copied almost straight from the Ripple homepage

The text of this article is nearly identical to paragraphs on the "What is Ripple?" section of the Ripple project's front page. It appears that it was effectively copied from that section by Ryan Fugger, the leader of the Ripple project, on 16 April 2007, and has undergone only a handful of minor changes since.

I'm pretty sure there's no copyright issue (if for no other reason than that the author of the Ripple homepage effectively GFDL'd his text by copying it to Wikipedia). And there's no advertising/self-promo issue, as the text is pretty balanced. But there may be a POV issue.

I noticed this because I have essentially the same POV as Ryan, and I've had discussions with other people who disagree with me, and their POVs are not represented here at all.

I think the article could use a section describing both generally-perceived risks that are definitely handled by Ripple (especially the potential for scam/fraud and for money laundering) and actual risks that may not be (any government could declare Ripple a form of illegal private currency at any time and freeze trading--as happened with Hawala in some jurisdictions). Most, but not all, of these can be found in the Ripple FAQ; none of them are dealt with here.

(Actually, the anon update of 12 June did add a section that effectively answers the "Ripple is just an over-complicated version of LETS" objection, which is one I considered, but have never heard from anyone else.)

The problem with adding such a section is that it's hard for any of it to be verifiable. Questions that are in the FAQ can at least cite the FAQ (to the extent that it counts as a trusted/notable source), but for anything else (like the government issue), it seems like original research, or at best "common sense." I'm not sure how to resolve this, but I think it does need resolution. --75.36.135.23 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My issue with this would be that what's here currently is not in any way encyclopedic. There's a whole load of promotional fluff, but nothing actually explaining what this is, what it does, how it came about, or how it works. The whole article, as it stands, can be boiled down to "Ripple is a new magic money system that is awesome. Totally awesome. Current monetary systems suck, because they have problems; Ripple solves these problems. By magic. It's better than Paypal, because Paypal is teh suck. Ripple Nodes are way better than Paypal, but I'm not telling you what one is". 79.123.73.150 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an especial interest in this and will evaluate the project, if possible it's software, and rewrite the article if needed. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with the "Principle" section, no principle is described, just a list of advantages compared with traditional banking. It's difficult to explain the principle in a short space.--RomualdoGrillo (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

why disclose your plans?

if you were planning a ripple-style system it would be silly to out yourself on wikipedia wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.168.117 (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Single points of control?

What is that supposed to mean? The concept of a single point of failure is an objective technical description of an attribute of the network topology, but phrasing the same phenomenon in terms that imply that these single-points benefit the system in some way requires something to back it up. 76.76.236.67 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

This article has no cites, and tells me basically nothing about Ripple and how it's supposed to work, let alone it's philosophy beyond that it's reliant on some sort of social trust. Furthermore, it's entirely unclear if that last para is talking about traditional banking (which is how I first read it) or about Ripple.

Article should fly through speedy delete if someone is to submit it. Otherwise, I suggest those that think this article could have some value get to work improving it. Remember: No ORIGINAL RESEARCH though. 121.99.254.31 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

Reason for edit

I undid revision 555809758: If you look at the github page, you will see the source code hasn't been released (https://github.com/rippleFoundation/ripple), so for now, it's closed source. The system may not be inherently centralized, but for now it is (which is why the article says currently). This may change in the future, but for now it's closed source and centralized (the article does note that Ripple is not fully implemented yet). I'll add the github link as a second reference. Cliff12345 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sentences too long

I have to come up for air after reading that initial paragraph / sentence .. please keep it short as it aids understanding. Comment posted by User: Nibinaear (Talk) at 20:05, 29 June 2013.

What's wrong with it (how could it be improved, specifically)? The first paragraph is broken into several sentences, none of which seem to me to be incredibly long. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rippling

I'm enormously annoyed to see that much of the description I had added of the system of IOUs and rippling has been edited out of the article. It is now focused exclusively on the role of gateways, which paints a misleading picture. The difference between IOUs and XRP, and the trade-off between exchange rate risk and counterparty risk are crucial concepts in Ripple. The role of Ryan Fugger which was also edited out needs to be described as well. I intend to fix these issues. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pirate Buttercup, I am FURIOUS at your wanton deletion of my carefully constructed material. It is NOT redundant with what's there because what's there is inaccurate. I had noted that I was going to address that. You do not OWN this article. I expect you to self-revert immediately. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And may I remind you of the three revert rule? Unless you self-revert you are liable to be summarily slapped with a temporary ban without further warning. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed criticism

My biggest criticism of Ripple is that it solves a problem that does not exist, and pretends to be important on the basis that it's a "payment" system, which is only true when the word "payment" is grotesquely redefined. Saying you can send a payment via Ripple is like saying you can send an elephant via a telephone by redefining the word "elephant" to include "description of an elephant".

Ripple is a system that allows people to send promises to other people... just like e-mail. It supports dollars, yen, bitcoins, moon rocks, and unicorn horns equally well, because a promise is just words and requires only imagination and some fingers to type on a keyboard. The only difference is that when you use Ripple, you use software that adds these promises up and then pretends that these promises are real money.

Ripple is, or at least strives to be, decentralized. That way, like Bitcoin, it can be beyond the reach of the law and nobody can shut it down. Unfortunately, the promises sent across the Ripple network can't be enforced, except by the very law Ripple strives to be insulated from. And the moment the media reports a single Ripple user gets hacked and has a bunch of bogus "promises" issued across the network in his name that he has no plans to honor, that will be the same moment courts declare once and for all that just because the Ripple database says something is so, definitely does not mean it is so.

When someone "sends you $1000" on Ripple, what you're really getting is a promise to be paid $1000 by someone you don't know, someone who has never agreed to pay you, and someone who doesn't ever have to pay you. The fact that that person knows and trusts the same Billy Bob is a neat coincidence that helps you get scammed and misled into thinking that a vague promise and $1000 are somehow the same thing. It's $1000 you can never collect, because if you try and he doesn't pay, you have nothing - and if you sue him, you won't be able to prove he owes you anything, because, technically, he doesn't. Of course, you don't care, because you presumably plan to pass the bag to the next sucker, the same way you'd hope to pass off a counterfeit $100 bill someone paid to you, all the while, pretending that you're innocent and don't know any better.

The best comparison I can come up for Ripple, is that it's a luxury screen-door submarine of the finest craftsmanship. It's a masterpiece execution of an irreparably flawed idea.

I submit that any claim of Ripple being a "payment" system is a blatant NPOV violation. Ripple is, at best, a social experiment and nothing more. I sincerely hope they prove me wrong. Casascius♠ (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps we should rephrase the description to mention that the payments can't be enforced at the moment, so are currently just promises, but that the intention of Ripple is to become a payment network? I should also add that whilst you may be correct, Wikipedia relies on other sources for its information (no original research), so we would need to find some sources that back up what you're saying. Cliff12345 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about the mechanics of Ripple, but it's not up to us to engage in original research. If a coherent criticism of Ripple by someone notable has been published anywhere we can use it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've used Ripple a bit... and dug out my old wikipedia credentials to comment... re: "When someone "sends you $1000" on Ripple, what you're really getting is a promise to be paid $1000 by someone you don't know, someone who has never agreed to pay you, and someone who doesn't ever have to pay you.", this seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding or misuse of the system. When someone "sends you $1000", you receive a promise to be paid $1000 by someone you've indicated you're willing to trust to owe you $1000. If the person you've indicated you're willing to trust is either the sender, or someone who the sender trusts, you have degenerate cases equivalent to writing "I owe you $1000" and handing it directly to the recipient, or telling a traditional payment processor to "pay" the recipient (e.g. before the transaction, PayPal owed the sender $1000, but afterwards, PayPal owes the recipient $1000). The point of the system, however, is to allow a sender to convert balances he holds issued by someone you don't trust to balances you hold issued by someone he doesn't trust. Nothing within the system requires you to trust someone you don't know, who has never agreed to pay you etc. Indeed, many would strongly recommend against such action, advocating that you only trust those with whom you have a settlement contract. Stoive (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether Ripple is open source

@Mmeijeri: It looks like I got reverted for an edit that removed the text "open-source" from the first sentence of Ripple (monetary system). In my edit summary, I linked to a section of this talk page detailing why Ripple is not open source. As the section says, https://github.com/rippleFoundation/ripple, the GitHub repo that contains the source code is still unavailable. Therefore, it is not open source. If you can provide me with a link that clearly shows that it was released two months ago, as your edit summary claims, then great. In fact, the article cites https://github.com/ripple as the "official" repo. If it's open source, then I should be able to find the core code that powers the Ripple system; however, it's not there. I will continue to assume that Ripple is not open source until proven otherwise. APerson (talk!) 20:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You will do no such thing. You made a Bold edit, which is fine, I Reverted it and now we need to Discuss before you reapply your change. You don't get to revert a reversion. Stop edit-warring. That's the procedural point. And as for a substantive point: here's a link to the rippled source: https://github.com/ripple/rippled/. You should self-revert before someone else reverts you. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The link to github already listed the rippled repo, but I've added a link to the official announcement. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Decentralised vs distributed

Ripple has been accused of being centralised or merely distributed rather than fully decentralised. I believe both accusations are false after the release of the server code. Anyone can act as a gateway if they want or run a validator. Anyone can choose which validators to use and which gateways to do business with.

Opposing opinions can be cited of course, but then we do need sources. Does anyone have a respectable link to a discussion of the difference between the two concepts and how it applies to Ripple? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think the original text about it being not decentralized was a bit misleading, (my original edit was intended to clarify this, but didn't seem to work as intended). I've since simply removed the bracket about not being decentralized. I think the reason that Ripple was being claimed to be centralized was that although the code has been released, the gateways currently seem to be almost exclusively run by Ripple Labs (as the article says it is currently not substantially implemented as a decentralized system). Cliff12345 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• No gateway so far has been operated by Ripple Labs/Open Coin so far, they only operate servers to use the network itself via their reference client software. Any funds that are not XRP are held by external entities (called gateways), an example would be Bitstamp, a Slovenian Bitcoin exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.162.127 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Scamcoin premined

Ripple currency is a scamcoin. Scamcoin is a cryptocurrency with was premined by author before publishing. Scamcoin is fraud and cheat. We have to write it in the first section of article, but some admin is deleting that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.142.215 (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You need a published reliable source for the statement. The reference you are attempting to use for the statement makes no mention of the claim of it being a "scamcoin" as you call it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pernicious propaganda. The perpetrator should be nominated for a block if he persists in his behaviour. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ask here what is scamcoin: http://www.reddit.com/r/scamcoin/ It is premined virtual cryptocurrency. And XRP is premined 50% so it is total scam and cheat. IT must be wroten in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.142.215 (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Forum postings do not meet Wikipedia's definition of being a reliable source. Please review WP:RS, which states, in part: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

@Rippleport: you answered some of the criticisms mentioned, but now it no longer matches the source. Some of the accusations are clearly false, and perhaps made in bad faith, but this is problematic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The current criticism section answers some of the criticisms directly after mentioning them. While I think some of the answers are good, we shouldn't be arguing with our sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ripple isn't ripple

At some time in 2013 the ripple name and domain names were purchased by a group of entrepreneurs to use as a name for a electronic money system which has no relationship to the Ripple discussed in this article or in the citations beyond the fact that it also supports exchanging debt. I haven't a clue of what to do about this. The old proposed system barely skated by notability requirements and the new one doesn't, though there is apparently a lot of funding going in to promoting it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not true that there is no relationship, ripple.com has all the blessings from the Ripple founder: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rippleusers/IVin3Qwrp7k

It's still to be a community credit system, although it will be challenging to implement, as discussed here https://ripple.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6 and here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145896.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.6.146 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a community credit system. You can use any currency you want, but any credit is tied to the issuer, even if the currency is a traditional one like USD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.84.213 (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ripple.com venture of 2013 is quite different from original Ripple concept. It is a private venture promoted by OpenCoin, which is the sole issuer of a special currency, XRP, which is not part of the original Ripple concept. Any user must spend XRP order to use the system. It seems the system is made centralized by means of the currency and the Ripple.com site. It is not clear if the previous published work do apply to the new system. There are no proof for the claims as to why the currency XRP was added to the architecture, also there is no proof for the robustness of a multi node setup, if under attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.240.9.109 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously XRP was added to the concept so they could premine all of it. What a scam. 96.251.137.43 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and there is no place for the pernicious anti-Ripple propaganda coming from some dishonest Bitcoin fanatics on Wikipedia. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

wow, this is a shit article

NPOV anybody? Preceding unsigned comment added by User:202.89.174.132 (Talk), 16:19 06-05-2013

Even without NPOV, they are making ripple too complicated to understand and therefore not enough people will trust it and therefore use it. Ywaz (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole fucking article. All the drama has been removed, the point of view has been neutralized, and the protocol's description has been trimmed to resemble the style and length we have for the BitTorrent article and it no longer strays off-topic. There is no advantages/disadvantages section, there is no personal essay about how the trust on the banks is a crime waiting to happen, there are no crystal ball predictions on what people are going to do with it; it is all put into concise paragraphs and it should read like any other Wikipedia article on software now. Cheers. :) X-Fi6 (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You made some VERY good edits. Especially getting rid of that ‘Advantages’ section. Thank you for your help. Unfortunately gateways are not banks nor are they owned, operated or financed by banks. In light of matters like FDIC insurance, claiming that they are is misleading. You obviously have a better honed skill of streamlining verbiage than I do, however in several places it may have gone too far. For example, there is an exceptional amount of misunderstanding about the role of Ripple Labs. Your version seems much less informative. Additionally there is a lot of confusion about how XRP (unlike other crypto-coins) has an actual functional value within the system and is not merely a value holder. Readers come here looking for precisely that type of information. I’m reverting the article back to what I have been working on everyday for weeks. I will continue to work on this project daily. Please give it some time before making massive changes. I think that between my knowledge of the subject and your skill at streamlining, curtailing my enthusiasm and wikipedia procedures, a great article may result. Cheers :-) PirateButtercup (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just took a look at this article. It is based almost exclusively on information from Ripple, which is a terrible practice when parroting claims about controversial issues like security and financial risk (e.g. "...allows users or businesses to transact in different currencies without exposing themselves to undesired foreign currency exchange risk" – this is currently in the Wikipedia article, citing Ripple Labs as the source). I notice also that a book called "Bitcoins, litecoins, what coins?: A global phenomenon" is cited; this is self-published, and is absolutely not a reliable source. Same with citing blogs like "crypt.la". While you seem to have a good knowledge of the subject, if you can't find a reliable source that backs up that knowledge, the non-verifiable information should be removed from the article. ––Agyle (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helping hand! :-) Have found 15+ reliable sources (Bloomberg, Forbes, MITTechReview, Esquire, EuroMoney, etc.). Will finish reviewing citations and re-referencing sources over next few days. 94.96.199.16 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, glad to see the article improving. To whomever is adding bare web addresses, it would be helpful (though isn't required) if they were added with more detail. At a minimum, if the same reference is cited multiple times, it should use the "ref name=whatever" mechanism so each footnote can refer to the same reference. It would also be nice if the author used the "cite news" and "cite website" templates to include article authors, titles, and other details. There are many examples of both of these within the article, which can be helpful in learning how to use them, or feel free to ask questions here. ––Agyle (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was doing the bare addresses. I *think* I've mastered adding more detail...will work on the multiple citations also. I learned from the ones you did...thank you. I will continue to replace primary references as the week continues.Agyle (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateButtercup (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Section "Legal" should be removed

@PirateButtercup: You've added a section "On 27 December 2013, Ripple Labs filed suit against Rippln, a multi-level marketing organization, for trademark infringement, cybersquatting and unfair competition. The suit was filed at the California Northern District Courthouse in San Francisco". Your edit comment says that content has both interest and relevance, but the citation for the content is simply a link to the court filing. Could you please provide some support for your assertion that the trademark infringement suit is interesting or relevant? For example was the filing covered in a major media outlet? (I couldn't find any.) Chris Arnesen 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

People had been confusing the two and I didn't know about the suit, so I found it interesting. But it's more something you'd mention on a future Ripple Labs page than on this page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I'm having a hard time understanding the overlap / distinction between the technology and the company. I'd support splitting off "Ripple Labs" as a separate article. Chris Arnesen 19:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an internet protocol called Ripple. The lawsuit is for cybersquatting on Ripple's domain. How much more 'relevant' could it get? I certainly feel that it's even MORE relevant to the future Ripple Labs page. It's salience certainly did have a significant impact on the discussion boards, Twitter, etc. PirateButtercup (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It could get relevant enough that somebody in the media actually covered it. This is Wikipedia, not a Ripple Wiki. Every detail of Ripple and Ripple Labs is not notable enough for inclusion. Chris Arnesen 20:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article would be better split in two, RipplePay or Ripple Pay which was a concept proposed and duscussed around 2005, and Ripple, the fully-implemented payment protocol and digital currency created by Ripple Labs Inc. (formerly Open Coin or something) around 2013. While Ripple has some support/involvement from RipplePay's original inventory, it seems he was brought in to another organization, not vice versa. If I'm wrong on this, and the continuity between the original and current forms, I could see keeping it as one article.

Regarding the lawsuit, if it received no coverage in any major media, and you can only find mention in government recrods, it should not be brought up here. It seems like the routine sort of lawsuit that any generic-named internet property engages in on a regular basis.

––Agyle (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any coverage from any 'major' media. For the record, current forum discourse revolves around whether Ripple is a 'scam' or not. Some of this is based on pre-open source publications, some is caused by the trademark infringement and cybersquatting by a less reputable company named Rippln. Noting this documented legal action in wikipedia clearly delineates that there is a issue between 2 similarly sounding entities. I disagree with the need for media coverage on an issue so close to the largest contemporary issue surrounding Ripple. But I'll certainly pull it...PirateButtercup (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source (e.g. The New York Times) mentioned the lawsuit, then the legal filing might be cited as a primary source to confirm basic, factual details (e.g. date and court of filing, names of litigants). However, it's not for Wikipedia to judge the significance or motivation of legal action. Many frivolous lawsuits are filed because a defendant may not respond in time, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff by default; these have no bearing on the merits of the case, and shoulnd't be construed by Wikipedia that way. That's where you want a legal expert, on record, in a reliable source weighing in on the issue, rather than a bunch of internet forum participants who probably have a vested financial interest in how the case is portrayed. ––Agyle (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ripple is already cited by several peer-reviewed published articles

According to Google Scholar, Ripple has been cited by several peer-reviewed published articles, making it a notable project. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&cites=4151406945953135708 Touisiau (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me, and I was unable to find peer-reviewed journal articles on the earlier RipplePay system, the modern Ripple payment protoco, or the Ripple/XRT cryptocurrency. Note that Ripple is the name of a mesh-based networking protocol, which isn't directly related to the payment protocol or currency in any way. ––Agyle (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journal articles would be a great way to shore up the verifiability of this article. There's been a lot of buzz around Ripple lately (at least here in San Francisco Bitcoin circles), which probably means the academics will be looking into it sooner rather than later. Let's keep our eyes open for articles.Chris Arnesen 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to Ripple Labs tomorrow night January 30th. Feel free to send along your questions

Hi All,

I'm going to a meetup at Ripple Labs tomorrow night January 30th http://www.meetup.com/xrptrader-com/events/161883232/ . If you have any questions about Ripple or Ripple Labs, feel free to let me know and I'll try to get some answers. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 01:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If Larsen, McCaleb, or Fugger are willing to pose for a Wikimedia commons photo, it could be useful in future years. :-) ––Agyle (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Recently I read of a company (Peercover) talking about having an IPO on Ripple. This is the first I've heard/read about Ripple's potential use as a 'stock exchange'. I understand that any units of value can be exchanged on Ripple and that stock are units of value, but nothing I've read, seen, studied, etc. has specifically mentioned shares in a company. If the opportunity presents itself to you, it would be interesting to get more information about this potential. Obviously, I would ask them to look at the current wikipedia article and solicit comment. I certainly don't want to misrepresent anything. Finally, let them know that in some functional issues they are the only source for information....for example the transit fee for allowing rippling through accounts. As this info is only available on Ripplewiki, and Ripplewiki shouldn't be referenced, then it'd be great to have some other Ripple Labs posting of specifics of how ripple works. If interested, I'll trade you your day in San Fransisco for my day in Riyadh  ;-) PirateButtercup (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ripple wiki is NOT a reliable source

@PirateButtercup: Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it. Wikipedia itself isn't even normally considered a verifiable source. So certainly uncited content on an external wiki can't be considered verifiable, whether or not it happens to be hosted by Ripple Labs. This isn't even a grey area. Please reapply my removal of the Ripple Wiki "citations". At best that site deserves a single external link. Chris Arnesen 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may misunderstand the link you sent. It states not to quote sources that have used Wikipedia as a source. That hasn't been done. The RippleWiki is publish by Ripple Labs for informational purposes. Only Ripple Labs can post/change. It is not open to public modification. The Ripple Wiki page is therefore a primary source issued by Ripple Labs. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.PirateButtercup (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I did misunderstand the link. It says, "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." Wikipedia is not a valid source, nor are external articles that cite Wikipedia as a source. By extension, external wikis are not valid sources. For example, en.bitcoin.it is not a valid source in the Bitcoin article. You say that though the Ripple wiki is powered by the Wikimedia software, it's only editable by employees of Ripple Labs and therefore should be considered more like software documentation than a Wiki so far as verifiability is concerned. Can you provide some evidence that's the case? If it is, we should say something along those lines explicitly in the article, because it sure doesn't look like a verifiable source. Chris Arnesen 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

While there is nothing precluding blogs and wikis from being cited as reliable sources, the circumstances depend on their background, and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If they're open to editing and contributions from the public, that precludes them from being reliable sources. If all posts are being edited and approved through established, reputable editorial policies, as with some “blogs” published in print versions of the New York Times or LA Times, those pass muster. This is a gray area – Ripple's "wiki" is hosted on ripple.com, but with no information about who can edit it: is it open only to company spokespeople, to anyone within the company, or anyone/some subset from the public at large? Ripple's About Wiki page is apparently unchanged from the default software installation, providing no incite. In the absence of any reliable information, I'd take the most cautious approach and not treat it as an approved, vetted communication from the company itself. ––Agyle (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I was wrong about the RippleWiki. I managed to create an account at Ripplewiki and found myself with what seemed like the ability to modify content. I did not actually modify anything as I didn't deem it appropriate. But by all appearances, I seemed to have the ability to. Therefore, Chrisarnesen is right....RippleWIki is publicly modifiable and therefore shouldn't be used as a source. I have listed all info referenced in this article to RippleWiki and am finding alternative reputable references. So far I can easily replace 50% of them. I anticipate 90% are replaceable. PirateButtercup (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I intend to replace every RippleWiki reference with references from Euromoney, CoinDesk, The Street, Fast Company, Ripple Labs, etc. … EXCEPT 1. I can’t replace the reference to Ripple’s intent to have a 3-tier rating of gateways…Therefore I guess it should be deleted...PirateButtercup (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I noticed some shaky sources being used; here are my suggestions on what would constitute a reliable source or not:

Not reliable sources:

• Finsmes seems to be a one-person blog.
• [https://bitcointalk.org/ Bitcoin Forum] open internet forum.
• Ripple Charts anonymously-run website listing exchange rates, no sources, no verifiability.
• Bitcoins, litecoins, what coins?: A global phenomenon, self-published book.
• Forex Minute just no.

Reliable industry-specific sources (admittedly a bit subjective):

• Coindesk Clear editorial review, oversight & disclosure policies; professionally run, funded by a seasoned Silicon Valley investor, referred to by established new sources.
• Bitcoin Magazine (Coin Publishing Ltd.). Rather amateurish, but they have a print version sold in stores, an editorial board, and editorial oversight.

At best, extremely weak sources; weigh claims against strength of the source.

• Motherboard (beta), a bloggish click-bait-style site; some good writing, but no clear signs of editorial review, policies, or fact–checking.
• Lets Talk Bitcoins seems to be a multiperson volunteer blog, some articles are published anonymously or pseudonymously, no clear editorial review, policies, or fact–checking.

––Agyle (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• FinSMEs reference was replaced with Dow Jones and Bloomberg.
• The forum reference must have been replaced as it’s no longer there.
• The RippleCharts reference has been replaced with one from Digigold Ltd.
• All references to the self-publish book have been replaced.
• I am confused about what is wrong with ForEx Minute. They seem to meet all the criteria of a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateButtercup (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Will continue to improve the remaining

PirateButtercup (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Digigold Ltd does not seem like a reliable source.

ForEx Minute seems to be primarily a banner farm, with a small amount of news reporting, until recently by a sole author, with a second author recently covering Bitcoin topics. While this is just my subjective opinion, I have doubts about the existence of any editorial oversight, editorial policies, or an editorial board overseeing the news organization's publication. ––Agyle (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then let's delete the ForEx Minute quote. In terms of the reference to XRPs current price (and DigiGold), Ripple Charts is created by Ripple Labs. Due to their transparency, I was able to find the members of their team responsible for it as well as other intimate info. I sent them an email and requested that they include an 'about' section with necessary information so that it could be quoted by academics (on the page). Until then, I will give up on the idea of using the most up-to-date quote price and instead refer to one posted in an earlier article. PirateButtercup (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

These entities do not control Ripple

"Even though it was created by Fugger, developed by Open Coin Inc. and advanced by Ripple Labs Inc., according to MIT Technology Review, these entities do not control Ripple." The most natural interpretation of that sentence is that somehow control has been wrested from their hands by unseen actors. Also the "according to MIT Technology Review" makes it sound like that assertion is controversial. (There's an implied "according to others that's not true"). Here's the relevant paragraph from the article "In recent years, technology investors have shown a lot of interest in payments companies such as Square and Dwolla, eyeing the lucrative transaction fees levied by credit-card companies. However, OpenCoin has a very different business model, since the company does not control Ripple even though it created it. OpenCoin plans to hand out some 50 billion Ripples in coming months, and more in the future, in an attempt to get the currency to function independently." The only assertions that we should make are that Ripple is now open source and distributed and that the company's business model is to make money by retaining a sizable number of XRP. Chris Arnesen 01:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ripple Labs still has a lot of influence, since they are paying developers to develop new features, doing deals with new gateways and generally promoting the Ripple system. But they no longer have absolute control, since everyone can now run their own validation nodes. Most users and organisations will likely also include Ripple Labs' validator nodes in their list of nodes to achieve consensus with, but as more and more gateways and validators come online, Ripple Labs' influence will wane. If Ripple Labs were to be shut down, they couldn't take the Ripple network down with them. Ripple's developers have more or less said that they've made sure Ripple Labs doesn't have control over the network precisely to avoid the fate of one of McCaleb's previous companies, eDonkey. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Chrisarnesan, I think Mmeijeri got the meaning right, it's just not explained well in the MIT Tech Review or in Wikipedia's cribbing from that. There are at least four meanings to the term "Ripple" in the article: the company, the original protocol, the current/new protocol, and the currency. I assume they meant the new protocol, although at the time of that article's writing (April 2013) that seemed pretty dubious (see BCM from Sept 2013 as contradiction). And maybe they just meant that if you shut down one group's nodes, another group's would still work. It sounds like an ill-defined bit of spin an employee dropped that a gullible writer bit on because it sounded good. If it's used in this article at all, its meaning should be clarified, and probably a clearer source cited. Or ditch the wording and say it another way – Meijeri's comment is much more explanatory than a blanket "nobody controls ripple". ––Agyle (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well.. the company is 'Ripple Labs', the currency are 'ripples' and the daemon is 'rippled'. Obviously they control themselves and the release/distribution of XRP. The only thing I believe 'Ripple' refers to in this case is the network of users: the gateways, market makers, etc. and their basic interaction. The company doesn't control gateways or market makers....those are individual or organizational enterprises. Nor does the company have the ability to control/freeze/close user accounts. Can we add the word 'system' or 'network' after the word 'Ripple'? Ripple Labs has created...and released...a public good. They don't lord over it in a proprietary manner. This is a defining point of Ripple. This quote reflects the frequently bandied comment that RL is to Ripple what Red Hat is to Linux. (edited) PirateButtercup (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ripple is NOT an internet protocol

Internet protocol is the low-level protocol for packet transfer. Above that one level of abstraction is the "transport layer", and above that lies the "application layer" which contains SMTP, HTTP, etc. Ripple is a Communications protocol. If you disagree, make your case here, else I'll make the change once the protection on the article expires in a few days.Chris Arnesen 01:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a widely-understood informal meaning to "internet protocol" that means a communications protocol or API running over the internet. There is also a narrower technical definition within the context of OSI abstraction layers, and capital–I capital–P Internet Protocol. No problem making something clearer, but "communication protocol" also has many meanings outside of the OSI abstraction layer. ––Agyle (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone use "internet protocol" to broadly mean "a communications protocol or API running over the internet". The strong primary meaning of "Internet protocol" is Internet protocol, as in IP addresses. I suppose one might say "Internet protocol" to mean "a member of the Internet protocol suite". That usage is far from common, potentially confusing, and should be avoided here. From the Wikipedia article on SMTP : "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is an Internet standard for electronic mail (e-mail) transmission across Internet Protocol (IP) networks". From HTTP : "The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems." If I had to guess, I'd say that this article uses the term "Internet protocol" because that's what Ripple Labs uses in their promotional document https://ripple.com/ripple_primer.pdf . They liken RTXP to HTTP and SMTP, which is rather presumptuous in the first place if you ask me. Chris Arnesen 16:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Agyle, but maybe we can sidestep the issue by using the term "internet-based protocol"? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is undeniably a protocol and this should be included in it's basic description. However, so is the way I choose to arrange my silverware on the dinner table. I understand your concern about using the term 'internet protocol' and I'm on the fence about it. I am opposed to completely deleting reference to the word 'protocol' as it is a salient aspect of the endeavor. Only using the word 'protocol' is far to broad, however. I'm in favor of 'transaction protocol' or 'communications protocol' or 'internet-based protocol'. PirateButtercup (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

[User:Chrisarnesen|Chris Arnesen]], some examples of "Internet protocol" being used to mean a protocol used on the Internet:

• Ripple.com: “Ripple is an Internet protocol for making financial transactions.”
• CoinDesk: “Cox believes the absence of an internet protocol for exchanging value have led to an imbalance of value around the world; something Ripple’s technology will help to restore.”
• New York Times: “Everyone can send and receive E-mail, for example, and get files and Web pages using standard Internet protocols.”
• Heavy.com: “Bitcoins are a decentralized digital currency based on an open-source, peer-to-peer Internet protocol.”
• University System of Georgia: “Types of Internet Protocols” (including ftp, gopher, and telnet).

In practice I don't think it's really confusing; the context in these examples makes their meaning clear. ––Agyle (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We can also call it an application layer protocol, perhaps in addition to "internet-based". Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely off the fence and on the side of Agyle....especially after Larsen's interview on Money & Tech.....it should stay "internet protocol" (edited) PirateButtercup (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding an Image?

I contacted the Ripple Federation, and in turn the artist who created images of XRP coin…similar to that depicted on Bitcoin’s page. The artist’s and publisher’s approval to use the image was granted and is now publicly posted in a manner that meets or exceeds Wikipedia’s requirements. However, upon second thought, the Bitcoin image is of an actual coin, where as this is an artist’s rendering of his conception of XRP coins. Since (to my knowledge) there is no actual, physical coin, perhaps it shouldn’t be added. Your feedback is requested. PirateButtercup (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For any image there needs to be some good reason for including it. It doesn't sound like the artist's rendering of XRP coins would have such a reason. Chris Arnesen 21:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Small Change about Available Currencies

As pointed out earlier, the ForExMinute quote in the Reception section will have to go. With the quote’s removal, I intend to relocate the 'currencies available' sentence to the Payment/Forex section. I intend to add that the commodities of gold, silver and platinum are now traded on the Ripple network as per the CoinDesk article about the new Ripple Singapore gateway. Any reason I shouldn't? PirateButtercup (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in here on the talk page. CoinDesk is a reliable source, and I think it's interesting and relevant that commodities can be traded. I say go for it! Chris Arnesen 21:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

New Sub Section Proposal - Bitcoin Bridge

I think there should be a subsection under "Use as a Payment/Foreign Exchange" entitled "Bitcoin Bridge". There's a ton of documentation on it. A bitcoin bridge allows a Ripple user to send any crypto/fiat/commodity currency to a bitcoin address, yet the receiver gets Bitcoin. So, anyone who accepts Bitcoin also accepts Ripple. This is due to a bridge between the bitcoin and Ripple protocols. This, btw, is the first of several bridges as RL is developing an email bridge (to SMTP), and SMS bridge and a bank account bridge. These latter bridges aren't finished yet so shouldn't be mentioned....but the Bitcoin bridge has been up and running for quite some time. Any comments before I add this section? PirateButtercup (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi I'm Chris. This article is in bad shape, and I'd like to help.

@PirateButtercup: @Mmeijeri: : I get it, I'm new to this article, but for so many of my edits to get reverted is pretty ridiculous. This article is in bad shape, and it won't get better if we can't change it. Much obliged if folks could ease their fingers off their revert triggers a bit. Of course, I'll respect the Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle and put in the necessary work here on the talk page, but please do consider giving me the benefit of the doubt. Thanks, Chris Arnesen 19:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted a single edit, and I didn't even really revert it, I took your input into account and made some further edits. No need to be touchy! Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, sorry and thanks. It was just kind of a deflating welcome to the article. It'll take me a little bit of time to get up to speed on my understanding of Ripple, but I do think I'll be able to help. Thanks in advance for your patience and assistance.Chris Arnesen 20:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So many of your edits were willy-nilly deleting hours of work and research. Only people with in-depth knowledge of the subject should be modifying content. If you want to help with layout, punctuation, reference-checking or other editing, that'd be great!! ... welcome on board!! :-)PirateButtercup (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If sorry to whoever took hours to research and write those sentences that I removed. Time spent on content creation, however, is not one of the criteria for content inclusion. I have a lot to learn about Ripple, but I know quite a bit about Wikipedia and topics closely related to Ripple like Bitcoin. One thing I know for sure is that this article has lots of problems (I've never seen such a long list of issues at the top of an article), and removing content is one of the things we'll need to do get it up to the high standards of Wikipedia. In-depth knowledge of the subject is actually not a requirement to modify content. To be sure, Wikipedia:Competence_is_required. I'm competent, and I'll edit the article as I see fit. I don't appreciate being told to stick to punctuation. Since we're already off on the wrong foot, I might as well throw this out there; yours is clearly a Single-purpose_account. I trust you're in the category of "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest", but please do read it anyway so that we can all try to get on the same page. Chris Arnesen 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I am single purpose. I swear I've looked over every line of code by now. I don't know wikipedia. I do know Ripple. I also know the big areas of misconception that the crypto-community has about it....and that's what I'm trying to address....misconceptions. Aside from the sources, I don't know that any of those problem areas listed are still accurate. I have 50+ articles from Bloomberg, Reuters, BitcoinMagazine, etc. that I have been replacing bad references with. Other than that, what issues do you see at this moment? PirateButtercup (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Were you previously using the userid Rippleport before it was blocked because of the name? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I kindly suggest taking some time away from this article to actually learn what Wikipedia is and how this group editing process works. We'll have a much more fruitful collaboration that way. Meanwhile I'll study Ripple, and we'll take this thing all the way to Featured Article.Chris Arnesen 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We're all on timeout now because of the brouhaha. Good opportunity to work things out on the talk page I guess. Chris Arnesen 01:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

On irrelevant links

The link to businessweek is clearly irrelevant to the lead, as it is about the company, and not about the protocol, and any projection from company to the protocol is prohibited WP:SYN. The link also barely qualifies as WP:RS (at least in the description part which is routinely written for such profiles by company itself).

Overall, the article is a BIG MESS now, and one of the reason for this mess is because of throwing in all the links which are barely relevant to the statements within. I will proceed with inserting {cn} at all the relevant places at least in the lead - it MAY help to clarify which links are relevant to which sentences. Ipsign (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ipsign, while I agree the article's a mess, spamming templates every other word isn't constructive, it just makes it hard to read. I doubt there's even a WP guideline to cite, as that's just ridiculous. :-) The entire article has been flagged as needing citations; if you're challenging an uncited claim, just remove it. Agyle (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

A neutrality tag has been added to this page. The poster must now explain why the tag was added so we can resolve the relevant issues. If no explanation is forthcoming, the tag will be deleted. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why the article isn't neutral, so I've removed that tag. I'm leaving the refimprove tag as the article (especially the "explanation" section) seems to be lacking in sources. I'm unsure about the notability tag, as Ripple seems to be a borderline case to me, there's a few media mentions, but not very many. Cliff12345 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I see it was re-added re rippling - but perhaps that is resolved now. Does anyone think the neutrality tag is still needed? If so why? Jzlcdh (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, ironic isn't it, I added the last instance of the pov tag because of the rippling issue. As far as I'm concerned that hasn't been resolved yet. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rippling

I want to make the explanation in the article less centered on gateways. The last time I tried this it ended with a dispute, so I'd like to know what the objections are. Below I've set out what I dislike about the current state of the article and why, and what I'd like to do about it.

My main complaint is that right now the the Ripple system is described as being centered around gateways, which is both incorrect and relevant to the dispute about whether Ripple is fully decentralised or merely distributed. Gateways are an extremely important addition, but the article describes them as essential components, when in reality they are still optional. At the most basic level Ripple records debts between users, and payments are made by adjusting debts. This may be done in a number of hops, depending on trust relations. This enables users who do not have direct trust relationships to ripple payments through their trust graph. At this level the Ripple system is completely peer-to-peer and completely decentralised, and not just merely distributed as some critics allege, and needs no gateways.

When gateways are introduced into the picture, that changes slightly. Gateways are "just" very special users that are trusted by a great many other users and can thus link users who would otherwise not be connected. Another aspect that distinguishes gateways from other users is that they do not generally extend trust to other users. In this sense it can be said that the introduction of gateways makes the network less peer-to-peer in the sense that all nodes are not now created equal, so you could say that the network of gateways (which is only a subset of the full set of nodes) is distributed rather than fully decentralised.

On the other hand, anyone can start a gateway, or act as an informal gateway, and there is no sharp dividing line between a well-connected individual and an informal gateway. Also, all previously mentioned functionality remains available, and gateways are certainly not the only point of entry to the Ripple system as some critics might allege. The Ripple system could work without gateways, and users can choose to avoid interacting with the gateways that already exist.

Since the distinction between being decentralised and being merely distributed is important, at least from the point of view of a vocal group of cryptocurrency proponents, the difference needs to be explained carefully. And of course, we must simply not make gateways appear more crucial than they are.

Consequently, I think that trust, IOUs and rippling should be explained before the section on gateways, rather than being described in subsections of the gateway section, because they are more basic than gateways. That also means they should not be explained in terms of gateways. It is rather the description of gateways that should refer to trust, IOUs and rippling.

Initially I also thought that the foreign exchange component was more basic than gateways and should be explained first. On reflection however, while technically order books can be defined without having gateways, realistically they could not have any depth without at least one party acting as an informal gateway. Consequently it seems to make sense to mention the order books after gateways, perhaps as a subsection, perhaps as a subsection on the same level.

It would then make sense to add a section about bridges at the same level as gateways. Market makers should come after that, since it makes no sense to discuss market makers before having discussed order books, and as argued earlier, it makes no sense to discuss order books before having mentioned gateways.Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence “At its core, Ripple is based around a shared, public database or ledger.” undermines the perspective that Ripple or this article is centered on gateways. We could move the Consensus section first, but Ripple’s distributed nature is an ‘under the hood’ facet.

Ripple is a value network. In your mind, how does value enter the network if not through a gateway?

Even if a parent creates their own informal gateway to distribute allowance to their kids, they still need a gateway to serve as the value hub for it’s distribution. This is what the CEO of Ripple Labs calls them, btw, ‘value hubs’ in a value system. In the days of RipplePay, your perspective was accurate. But that changed when OpenCoin took the reigns a year and 1/2 ago. This change was further codified and solidified under Ripple Labs.

The Ripple Labs video aptly named “How Ripple Works” also undermines your perspective. As does RL’s barrage of literature stating that “gateways allow people to move money in and out of the Ripple network.” There are entire sections on their site with labels such as “Why are Gateways So Important”.

The consensus ledger is distributed (a variety of decentralized), just like the block chain is for BTC.

Ripple’s architecture mirrors that of the internet itself. Your proposal to downgrade the relevance of a gateway is like downgrading the relevance of an ISP (gateway) to the internet. Actually being able to get value in/out of the network is one of the most salient aspects.

Discussions about IOUs could belong in a philosophy section. But when I look at the Wikipedia page about currencies, payment networks, exchanges, etc. they don’t have sections on philosophy or confusing talk about IOU's Even though that's all that a dollars is….an IOU from the government to the federal reserve that we share as currency. There is zero mention of it anywhere in wikipedia.

I am opposed to your recommendation. This article should focus on description and pragmatics, not philosophies or past incarnations. PirateButtercup (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As I explained above, everyone can act as an informal gateway. Anyone can extend an amount of trust to anyone they choose. The rippling mechanism can then be used to make payments to many people in the person's trust graph, subject to trust limits. The rippling mechanism doesn't just work one or two hops deep. Gateways are not needed at this point. Participants can periodically settle their netted transactions through any other payment mechanism they choose, such as cash or wire transfer.

Whether Ripple is distributed or decentralised is an important practical consideration, not just "philosophy". In addition, there is no reason why a system's philosophy should not be discussed. As for past incarnations, that's not what my complaint is about. Ripple's roots in Ryan Fugger's work are already described. What I'm talking about is Ripple in its current incarnation. The article paints a misleading and factually inaccurate picture of it and that needs to change.

Whether Ripple Labs chooses to emphasise gateways or not isn't relevant. They do, and that fact could be mentioned, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you can extend trust to someone who is not a gateway and that consequently gateways are defined in terms of trust and not the other way round.Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a very lovely side feature of the network, but that is all it is. If that were the focal point Ripple, then wouldn’t Ripple Labs be touting it as such?

Instead, they talk about things like depositing moneys at gateways and the types of financial transactions that can be conducted. Not since the RipplePay days has trustlines and rippling been paramount.

In the end, I cannot put my units of electronic value into Ripple without having or being a gateway. I can however make payments and trade currencies without rippling. You’ll notice in the only image we’ve got on the page that ‘Rippling’ is a feature that can simply be turned off…ergo, it’s not that critical.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am in favor of restructuring the piece though. By no means am I beholden to this idea, as I’ve just penned it….but what do you think of:

Intro

History

Payment/Exchange/Remittance

Gateways

Market Makers

(Future: Merchants)

(Future: Contracts)

Trustlines

Rippling

XRP

XRP as a Bridge Currency

XRP as an Anti-Spam Measure

Consensus Ledger

Protocol

Ripple Labs

Reception

PirateButtercup (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a side feature at all, it's the basic functionality that gateways rely upon. You are simply mistaken that you cannot get value into or out of the system without gateways, you can do that through your social graph. The main differences between gateways and ordinary users is that gateways specialise in issuing and redeeming IOUs, are incredibly well-connected, tend to hold the money people trust them for (in other words their custodial function), and tend not to extend trust lines to others. The protocol itself doesn't distinguish between gateways and other kinds of users.

How Ripple Labs promotes Ripple isn't decisive, though it should certainly be mentioned. How I'm describing Ripple is basically how the secondary sources we cite describe Ripple, and it's also factually more accurate than the article we have now.

I can't yet say what I think the total layout should be, but I disagree with your sketch above. In my opinion there should be a section on IOUs, trust lines and Rippling first, followed by sections on gateways and bridges and then on currency exchange. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Social graph"? Good god, what in the world are you talking about?!?!?! Are you sure you're on the right wikipedia page? This is not about RipplN. This is about RipplE. Please...Google "Ripple social graph" and tell me how many pages you have to go through before you find a mention of Ripple, Ripple Labs, XRP, RTXP or anything else that has to do with this payment protocol....because I gave up after 4 pages. Better yet Google "Social graph" site:ripple.com....you will not find ONE mention on the entire Ripple site about 'social graphs'....nor on RippleLabs.com nor in the Ripple Wiki. It obviously is not important. Nor is Rippling....or else you couldn't turn it off. Trustlines ARE important and I've given them due weighting. Seriously....for you to talk about 'social graphs', to say gateways are a 'new thing', overblowing 'rippling' ... I think you're conflating 2 issues or you're on the wrong page entirely.PirateButtercup (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Kindly drop the condescending tone. I am exactly on the right page and I understand precisely what Ripple is and isn't about. By social graph I meant that part of the trust graph that is made up of your personal acquaintances (and their acquaintances etc, i.e. the transitive closure) rather than gateways. If you read our sources you'll see that they describe Ripple in terms of trust, rippling, and IOUs because, you know, that's how Ripple actually works. Gateways are a secondary layer on top of that. Enormously important, but secondary and built on top of the primary functionality. Same for the currency exchange order books. Enormously important, but secondary and built on top of the primary functionality. We have reliable sources, what I intend to add is both true and improves the accuracy of the article. I'd like to hear a serious reason why I shouldn't carry out my proposed changes. 'I like to emphasise gateways' or any other personal POV isn't a valid reason. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And FYI, you can't just "turn off rippling". What you can do however is to set the NoRipple flag on your side of a trust line, which is not the same thing. If two trust lines connected to an account both have NoRipple set on the correct side, paths that enter one and leave through the other will be disregarded. See https://ripple.com/wiki/No_Ripple. If you could turn off rippling altogether you couldn't make payments to a third party with a balance you held at a gateway. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a lexicon closely associated with Ripple. Your random lapses in adherence to that lexicon makes me very suspect of your knowledge of the subject.

There are no lapses in my use of terminology.

The usage of market makers is not ‘rippling’. Furthermore, no rippling is needed if both sender and receiver accept the same issuer currency.

Yes there is. If A and B both trust gateway G and A makes a payment to B, then the payment ripples A -> G -> B. This is the essence of Ripple, this is where *the name Ripple* comes from.

Rippling is just one of many tools used by the path finding algorithm to route payment paths. It is not the algorithm itself….reference the MECHANICS section of the very page you cited about NoRipple.

This is pathetic. You were very clearly wrong about rippling, yet you insist I'm the one who needs more study. See https://ripple.com/wiki/Payments#Rippling_rules.

Now, please tell me specifically how value enters or exits Ripple's value network if not through a gateway. (not move value, add & remove value)

Value enters the network when someone extends credit to another and the other makes a payment. There's nothing magical about gateways, anyone can do it. The software doesn't see any difference between gateways and users.

Then, please spell our your proposed outline for restructuring the article. PirateButtercup (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not proposing an outline, though I did make some suggestions above. I made a change which you reverted, and now the onus is on you to explain what's wrong with it, not on me to make a far-reaching proposal for restructuring the article. I won't reinsert my change without consensus, but I'm not going to wait for your permission. It's clear you have only a very shallow understanding of Ripple and yet insist on lecturing others. I'm sick and tired of your disruptive behaviour and I'm going to wait for others to chime in. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You're not going to outline your proposed restructuring? Should I keep putting forth ideas until I correctly guess the one your thinking of?

Moving on... creating a line of credit to your friend doesn’t ADD VALUE (fiat, crypto, commodity, etc.) to the Ripple network. Next….

In terms of your proposal:

Gateways are the only way for money to enter the network. That is why they chose the name GATEWAY….meaning ‘entrance’. It is the entrance point for money. Without formal gateways, there would be no link to the real world of finance. Gateways are required to anchored Ripple’s ledger balances to fiat, crypto or commodities….otherwise it’s all Monopoly money…and no one would use it for real world transactions or exchanges.

“Since the distinction between being decentralized and being merely distributed is important, at least from the point of view of a vocal group of crypto-currency proponents, the difference needs to be explained carefully.” Depends on what your talking about. At this time, the currency is centralized, yet the payment/exchange are distributed and the ledger is decentralized. I think that can be talked about just fine in the sections that exist.

“There is no sharp dividing line between a well-connected individual and an informal gateway” .. But there IS between a formal and an informal gateway. The former lets you ADD value to the network. The later only create unbacked IOUs. Surely you know of the TradeFortress debacle. Encouraging Ripple users to extend trust to anyone other than where they deposited their money is unsound financial advice.

Finally, regarding your perceived over-inflation of the importance of gateways. At the bottom of the last page you cited regarding payments, you'll notice a section called "Putting It All Together"...in which gateways are mentioned 8 times, rippling 0 times and trust 1 time. Give it up, there is OVERWHELMING evidence for the critical role of gateways. In my proposal I put Trustlines at the same level as Gateways. I see that very yielding. Rippling is an aspect of the path finding algorithm. It should be subordinate to that....not equivalent to Gateways.PirateButtercup (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Martijn Meijering, if you think a change is going to be controversial, how about proposing it in a new Talk section for some feedback? I understand that doesn't really work if you're talking about several minor wording changes in a long article; I'm not sure quite what you have in mind, and did not see in the history log what past reversion(s) you mentioned. While I understand you and PirateButtercup have some differences of perspective, I think at this point specific changes would be most constructive. I could comment on parts of this discussion, for example I understood perfectly the informal use of "social graph" in this context, but arguing over trivial word choice within a discussion does not seem constructive, in the sense of improving the Wikipedia article.

PirateButtercup, please refrain from further uncivil discourse (e.g. "good God", "seriously?", "that is pathetic"); see WP:CIVIL.

--Agyle (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to know why my specific edit was reverted, but I'll do a Bold trial edit, which I expect to be reverted, and then we can Discuss what's wrong with it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I STRONGLY agree with Agyle...please propose substantial changes in a new Talk section. Unilaterally restructuring the article (like was done before) is a substantial change. Blatantly stating an unwillingness to propose an outline of such changes undermines the entire spirit of a collaborative work. For the record, Mr. Martijn called MY comment 'pathetic'....please take a cursory look at my user page if you want good examples of the uncivil discourse.

You and Rippleport were the ones who made unilateral changes to the existing text to delete the description of the P2P rippling mode and impose a gateway-centric point of view. Rippleport was a single-purpose account that was blocked because the name suggested official affiliation with Ripple Labs. He/she proposed a new name, that proposal was accepted, but afterwards nothing was done with the new name and then you showed up, another single-purpose account. I've asked you whether you are Rippleport, but haven't seen a reply.

Also, I did in fact propose changes, got no reply, went ahead with my changes, going in small steps explaining what I was doing and why, and then you summarily deleted my changes. I've asked you for explanation, which you haven't given. I do not need your permission either beforehand or afterwards, but those who revert bold changes have to explain why or else the changes can be reinstated. As a Wikipedian in good standing I will do as I see fit, which means a trial edit, which I expect to be reverted. The present discussion appears to be generating more heat than light, and I hope that a small self-contained trial edit will allow us to focus the discussion. If no constructive discussion is forthcoming, the change will be reinserted and any further disruptive editing will be reported. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally, I am absolutely 100% certain…beyond any shadow of a doubt…that you cannot add value to (or remove value from) the Ripple network unless you do it through a gateway. Furthermore, I have daily entries in my transaction log for 'rippling' and every single one of them is for allowing the currency issuer to change. None of the 'rippling' entries are for trading....which I actively do across 11 bi-directional and 3 uni-directional gateways every single day.....in 12 fiat, 3 crypto and 2 commodities.PirateButtercup (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you are absolutely 100% wrong. There's nothing special about gateways, with Ripple anyone can "be a bank". It's been described as the Facebook of money, if A knows B and B knows C, then A can pay C through B depending on the trust relations and balances. Not only is this a fact, it's what our sources say. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Indeed PirateButtercup is 100% wrong. I have many contacts that have added value to or extracted it from Ripple without touching a gateway. The only way your statement makes any sense whatsoever is if you mean that any and every Ripple account is also a gateway account, the protocol makes no distinction whatsoever, but that also makes your statement completely useless. 23.251.163.15 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A gateway is not an a type of account. It is a role. Specifically, one that issues IOUs. There are 3 types: mini gateways, manual gateways and formal ones. Value must go through one of these gateways in order to enter or exit the network. (Please reference the documents "Ripple For Users" and "Ripple For Gateways" in the Ripple Wiki)

Furthermore, mini gateways do not add ‘VALUE’ to the network. They issue unbacked IOUs. This is what is commonly known as debt. Issuing debt does not enhance value….if it did, we would count our credit card limits as part of our net worth.

There is no difference in backing between a gateway and an ordinary user. You mentioned the example of TradeFortress who issued IOUs he had no intention of honouring. Yet the same TradeFortress also ran an online wallet service that was either a scam or was hacked into. The money in inputs.io turned out to be just as unbacked as the IOUs issued by TradeFortress personally. Similarly, a whole host of bitoin wallet services has turned out to be unreliable, with Mt Gox as the most prominent example. Credit risk is credit risk. Gateways are mainly the easiest way for most people to get good connectivity to the Ripple network. It's currently so small that it is difficult to reach a random recipient through the graph of trust relations without making use of gateways.

And even if there were a difference, then we should state that instead of removing correct information from the article and replacing it with factually incorrect information. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In short, value can only enter or exit through a gateway. IOUs issued by a mini-gateway do not add value to this payment network. I can issue 100 billion Buttercup dollars and it will NOT increase the value of the Ripple network by 100 billion dollars. A formal or manual gateway with backed IOUs is required to put value in and take value out of the network.

This is simply false. If I want to make payments with my network of trusted associates I can do so without ever needing to use a gateway, either directly or indirectly. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For this reason, the role of a gateway is indispensable to the Ripple payment network and distributed exchange. The idea of making a Gateway a subcategory of trust lines represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the network. One can make direct node to node payments without any trust lines at all. Those payments won't have any value unless they are tethered to something on the other side of a gateway....be it mini, manual or formal.

No, this is simply wrong. You can only make payments without trust lines if you use XRP. All other assets require trust lines. If you want to send IOUs issued by a gateway to someone else, you need a trust relation between the sender and the gateway and between the recipient in the gateway. There are a few exceptions (offers aren't subject to trust limits for instance, and once you hold a gateway's IOUs you can lower the trust limit to below your current balance with that gateway), but that's the general principle. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As to being ‘100% wrong’ … Do you need me to explain how that is both impolite and illogical? PirateButtercup (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A gateway is not an a type of account. It is a role. Specifically, one that issues IOUs.(Perhaps this premise was over looked). Secondly, I said you can make payments without a trustline... and you said "No, this is simply wrong"...then you specifically spell out how to make payments without a trustline. Thanks for the chuckle :-) Now, back to point one: A gateway is not an a type of account. It is a role. Specifically, one that issues IOUs. It is impossible to enter, move or exit value within Ripple without IOUs. Otherwise the ledger has nothing to track...and since gateways issue and redeem IOUs....then it is impossible to enter, move or exit value within Ripple without the Gateways to issue them. Ripple cannot function with IOU issuers (known as Gateways). It can function without trustlines.PirateButtercup (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I know a gateway is a role. In fact that is exactly what I've been arguing. As for "chuckling", let me remind you of WP:CIVIL. Also, my argument was precisely correct, I showed you how you had to have a trust relation (either both parties with the issuing gateway or the sender with the recipient) before making the payment, contrary to your original assertion, and your subsequent denial. This is a very basic aspect of Ripple, and if you don't understand such a basic thing, you have no business editing this article. You keep saying only gateways can issue IOUs, but this is simply not the case. Anyone can issue IOUs, as you've admitted yourself. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been arguing that "Gateways" should be a subcategory of "Trustlines". (That was the change that YOU made and I undid and led to the site lockdown.) I said the opposite ... and proposed a compromise 6 weeks ago that they could be at the an equal hierarchal level. You opposed that also and offered no compromise or outline proposal. Now that you understand that:

1. Only gateways issue & redeem IOUs

2. Any account that issues IOUs is a gateway....that is what they are called for doing the job of issuing IOUs...they are called gateways...

3. Only the issuance/redemption of IOUs by gateways can add/remove monetary value to/from the network

4. Some transactions can occur without any trust lines

Do you still feel that the section for “Gateways” should be subordinate to the “Trustlines” section? Do you now understand that the current hierarchal outline best represents the the structure of the Ripple payment network (in this regard)?….or at, at minimum, the outline I proposed as a compromise (6 weeks ago) in which Gateways and Trustlines were given equal footing? You have failed to make your case that the 'Gateways' section should be a subcategory of the 'Trustlines' section. PirateButtercup (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop implying that I previously didn't understand Ripple and that you had to explain it to me. You have been making false statements about how Ripple works, strangely mixed with admissions that anyone can issue IOUs. The role of gateway is of course not formally defined, but it is intended by Ripple Labs to denote a business that offers issuing and redemption of IOUs as one of its services. And no, I disagree that your outline represents the best structure. I think I had best go ahead and make my trial edit to avoid further pointless circular discussion.

Also, could you please answer my earlier question whether you are the same person as the now blocked user Rippleport? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I take your response to mean that you now understand and agree that the "Gateways" section should not be subordinate to the "Trustlines" section. If not, I will continue to my attempt to disabuse you of that notion. (I don't know anything about any user named 'Rippleport') PirateButtercup (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your denial is noted and will be remembered. If it turns out to be incorrect, that would have unfortunate consequences. For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever argued in favour of making the gateways section subordinate to the trustlines section, I've merely said that trust is the more basic notion and that it should be mentioned first since the use of gateways is optional. And my understanding of Ripple was just fine, you have added nothing to it, while your own position has changed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So, when it comes to gateways, you no longer believe that ‘you can do without them’ as you posted on my user page. (It is the sentence following ‘I am a Ripple expert’.) Knowing that only gateways issue IOUs, I’m sure you see now that it would be difficult for Ripple to function without gateways. BTW, in your ‘Concept’ section….not all assets in Ripple are represented as debt…Cheers! :-) PirateButtercup (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You can absolutely do without gateways. As our source buterin2013 says, and as I have said numerous times before, they exists only because the network isn't currently sufficiently dense for fully p2p operation between all users. It can work just fine between subsets of users, say those who migrated from RipplePay, or local networks, and gateways can connect the rest, presuming enough people are willing to use them. Everyone can issue IOUs, not just gateways. If you redefine gateway to mean anyone with a positive non-XRP balance, then you are using the word in a different way than Ripple Labs. As for non-debt assets, yes of course, XRP balances aren't debt-based, that's the only exception, as I've mentioned before, everything else needs trust lines. It is becoming hard to see whether you really don't understand Ripple, or are just unwilling to admit you're wrong. But boy, are you wrong. I will take even smaller steps to flesh out the new Concept section and make any necessary changes elsewhere than I did last time before your wholesale reversal and the temporary page lockdown. This way we can see exactly where the problem is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ripple defines a gateway as an account that issues and redeems IOUs....this includes "mini gateways", "manual" gateways and "formal" gateways. Please review the documentation. The article from Buterin was written over a year ago (long before Ripple was open source). His understanding is more rooted in the RipplePay network than in the realities of the current Ripple Payment and Distributed Exchange network (which wasn't known to him). In addition to gateways being defined as accounts that issue IOUs, another example of the difference between the two is the presence of XRP as the sole system asset.

I think I now understand the issue. You must possess a very intricate understanding of the RipplePay system. This explains your conceptualizations of gateways, rippling, XRP, etc., for the salience and definitions of these are different between the two. I think it is imperative for you to fully study and absorb the changes that came about when OpenCoin/Ripple Labs took over. PirateButtercup (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of your condescending tone, you need to act according to WP:CIVIL just like anyone else. As I've told you before I have a deep understanding of Ripple and a reasonable understanding of the differences with RipplePay. I'm also familiar with the Ripple Labs documentation. Stop telling me that my understanding is outdated, because it isn't. That Ripple Labs documentation does have a different emphasis than that of the old RipplePay documentation, but we're not here to act as the marketing department of Ripple Labs or to echo a party line.

Everything you could do in the old RipplePay, you can still do with the new Ripple. This is amply demonstrated by our sources and I don't understand why you persist in your incorrect statements to the contrary. Perhaps it has something to do with your earlier statement that you wanted to remove mention of trust and IOUs as much as possible because it complicates efforts to evangelise Ripple to critics (can't remember the exact words, but it was something like this). If that's the case, then that's POV pushing and that's not allowed on Wikipedia. I'll continue to work to make sure that the article reflects the fact that trustlines and IOUs are more fundamental than gateways and that the use of gateways is optional, that the logical structure of the article reflects this, that fully P2P operation a la RipplePay is still possible, and that the article does not push a POV. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As soon as an account issues IOUs, they are....by definition....a gateway. A gateway is an account that issues and redeems IOUs. It doesn't have to be a company. A parent can act as a mini-gateway issuing allowance IOUs. The second an account issues IOUs, they are a gateway. That is the role that a gateway performs. To say that Ripple can function without gateways is to say that it can function without IOUs. I have not contrasted the abilities of the old and new systems, I have contrasted the denotation of the lexicon.

Issuing IOUs is not the definition of a gateway. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's try it like this....you agree any account can perform any role, right? So, what is your definition of the role of a gateway? How, specifically is it different than a normal user? What does it do EXACTLY that makes it different? ............. it simply issues and redeems IOUs. Without people or organizations playing the role of gateway, there would not be any IOUs. PirateButtercup (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

STOP LECTURING ME. I'm really getting very angry with your condescending behaviour. I've studied all Ripple documentation extensively. A parent issuing IOUs is not a gateway in the sense of the definition. Nevertheless you were saying that earlier, and are saying it below. That's simply wrong. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only do I agree any account can perform any role, that's what I've been telling you all the time. As for a definition of gateway, how about this one offered by Ripple Labs' Chief Cryptographer: "I would define a "Ripple gateway" as a company that makes it their business practice to engage in "issue on demand" and "redeem on demand" agreements with any of a large group of people or businesses who choose to accept this agreement. The "issue on demand" agreement means that they issue balances on the Ripple network in exchange for some currency-like asset transferred over any system other than Ripple (can be Bitcoins, can be dollars, whatever) at a fixed rate. The "redeem on demand" agreement means that they will redeem balances on the Ripple network for some currency-like asset transferred over any other system at a fixed rate. A gateway makes it possible for some asset to be traded on the Ripple network by gatewaying between Ripple and some means by which that asset can already be traded." Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a great definition of a formal gateway. A parent issuing IOUs as allowance is not a company. Nor am I a company for running the manual gateway that I do. Please review the documentation regarding Users and gateways in the RippleWiki.

As to your concept of trustlines.....Do you know how to send and receive USD, EUR, LTC, BTC, etc. in the Ripple network without setting up ANY trustlines? … in fact, you don’t even need a Ripple wallet. I’ve done it many, many times. If you have an account with one of the major gateways, i.e. Bitstamp, SnapSwap, JustCoin, et al. then you know about destination tags.

You simply wire money from your bank to your Gateway. You can then send payments to anyone via the Ripple network without ever setting up 1 trustline or even having your own Ripple wallet….directly from BItstamp. As banks begin to sign on, each of their account holders will be given a destination tag. Those account holders will never need to setup trust lines to anyone…at all. In fact, RL has made it clear that most people will be using the Ripple network and never even actually know they are.

You mean hosted wallets? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So, let's review:

1. An account that issues IOUs is (technically) a gateway.

2. Ripple cannot function without IOUs and therefore gateways.

3. Gateways are the only way to add and remove value (money) from the Ripple network

3. The majority of formal (and IRBA approved) gateways issue destination tags

4. Destination tags allow users to send and receive money without a wallet or trustline.

Yet in your mind, Gateways are not necessary and trustlines (which are clearly not needed by users) are more important? I strongly urge you to review ALL of the changes that accompanied the migration from RipplePay to Ripple and to fully absorb them before making further contributions to this page. Oh..and P.S. Can you please look over the draft version of the RL page mentioned below and give some feedback. Perhaps you can help me with the Logo issue or tell me how to make the page live. Thanks :-) PirateButtercup (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

More condescension. 1) is false, 2) is false, 3) is false because of the second half of that sentence (you cannot have IOUs without *trust lines*, not gateways), your second 3) may be true, not sure about 4), I thought that was intended for outgoing bridges only. Yes, I'm saying gateways are not necessary. You can ripple P2P without ever using a gateway. Possibly you can also pay through a gateway without using trustlines, but then you're not actually using the Ripple network. Even if this is true, it does not contradict the fact that you don't need gateways. I find your behaviour here astonishing and highly disruptive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Creditworthiness

I returned the 'Creditworthiness' section. Individual articles have been written about the offerings of these gateways in CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine, et al. however I just directed the citation to the IRBA website. This section previously existed, but was deleted. The reason provided was that the IRBA website only showed a bunch of logos. The IRBA site was amended and now clearly states that those companies are listed as they have met the disclosure standards (which are published on the IRBA home page.) Please comment here before making major modifications to the section. Cheers! :-) PirateButtercup (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Concept Section

The Concept section is poorly worded and does not flow in a logical manner. The lexical choices are often more mechanical than conceptual. Some statements are subjective in nature and cannot be substantiated (i.e. the outdated definition of ‘rippling’). Other statements are weird…’has been referred to as 'Facebook for money’. Ripple has been referred to as a lot of things, I don’t think we should go down the road of listing them.

The following has been paraphrased from the “Ripple Explained” article recently published by CoinDesk. I believe it is far superior to the subjective, heavily worded section that currently exists.

A person logs on to his or her preferred Ripple gateway, deposits money to it, and instructs that gateway to release funds to a second party via their gateway. The second party collects his or her funds. It is therefore possible to transmit anything without moving it, so long as both gateways are set up to deal in it. If either gateway is prepared to convert one type of asset to another (ie: act as a trader, or ‘market maker’), then a person can put cash in his or her gateway and the second party can receive a completely different currency.

If the two gateways do not have a trust relationship with one another, the transaction will still work so long as there are intermediary gateways who can form a chain of trust for the object being passed (cash, or gold, or whatever).

The Ripple algorithm tries to find the shortest trust path between the gateways.‘Ripples’ (XRP) are used if the path-finding algorithm cannot find a chain of trust between the two gateways. Within the Ripple network, you can convert anything to a number of XRPs, transfer the XRPs, then convert back at the end gateway, if needed.

In Ripple, a public ledger of accounts, balances, and IOUs are kept updated simultaneously in the Ripple network, which is a distributed collection of servers around the world. The servers agree on changes by consensus (effectively: “Do we all agree this transaction can take place?”). There is no central ‘authority’ who says yes or no to transactions, and anyone can be a server by running free software on their computer.PirateButtercup (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. You have been systematically demolishing this section to impose your own view of Ripple centered around gateways. The content is both correct and well-sourced, even if it does not match your preferred POV, and I'm making small rather than wholesale changes to make sure we can reach a consensus on the individual elements before we end up with another never ending discussion.

The definition of Rippling is not outdated, as you were forced to admit in previous discussion, though without admitting you changed your stance. I think I'll walk up to David Schwartz (Ripple Labs' chief cryptographer) at the Amsterdam Bitcoin conference tomorrow and ask him about his views on the rippling mechanism. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

By 'systematically demolish', do you mean that I deleted the quote that "ALL assets in Ripple are represented as debt" because it was not correct? (as I stated above exactly 2 months ago) My apologies. What should I have done? Back on topic, the change that I propose comes from the most recent published material on the subject appropriately called "Ripple Explained". It is clearly easier to understand than what is there now. Between published sources, primary sources and the discourse you create, it is my understanding that Wikipedia strongly prefers the former. Please refrain from aggressiveness on the Talk Pages. PirateButtercup (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I forgot that you denied you were user Rippleport. Nevertheless you have been consistently removing references to IOUs, rippling without using gateways and have (on-again off-again) been insisting all value has to enter the Ripple network through gateways. I have no objection to improving the wording of the material, as long as no information is lost. The article you refer to presents the simplified picture centered around gateways, so replacing the current text with it would remove useful information. It would also lose the reference to hawala, which is important.

We certainly cannot copy verbatim from published sources, except for fair-use citations. I think it is generally preferred to paraphrase sources rather than having whole sections consist of quotes, which is what I have done. The fact that the article you cited is newer than the sources I quoted is not decisive.

As for aggressiveness, I've never attempted to suppress your gateway-centric view, whereas you have been suppressing mine, whether intentionally or not. Note that I'm slowly introducing all elements of the section one by one, in tiny changes, with sources, to make sure we can have a productive discussion.

And for your information, I spoke to Bob Way and David Schwartz of Ripple Labs yesterday, and they confirmed my suspicions. The rippling mechanism hasn't really changed since Ripple Classic, except perhaps for the addition of the foreign exchange component. David Schwartz wasn't sure it had been implemented already in Ripple Classic, but he did know Ryan Fugger had at least some fairly detailed (and sound) designs for it. In Schwartz's opinion the main change from Ripple Classic was the change from a ledger maintained by a server that you had to trust to a distributed mechanism inspired by Bitcoin. The protocol is still based around IOUs and trust relationships, just as it has always been.

Gateways are not a protocol-level concept, and the protocol doesn't know the difference between a gateway and an individual user. If an account has thousands of connections it is more likely to be a gateway, if it has only a handful of connections it is more likely to be an ordinary user, but again the protocol doesn't know. The only difference is that a gateway has a business practice to issue and redeem IOUs. Both Schwartz and Way specifically denied that all value has to enter through gateways, it's just that that's currently the most common scenario. All use cases of Ripple Classic are still available, including avoiding the use of centralised gateways, and there are groups making use of Ripple in this way. In fact, most existing Ripple Classic users have migrated to Ripple. They mentioned the case of the Republic of Texas secessionist group as an example.

Ripple Labs is still fully committed to Ryan Fugger's vision in which everybody is a bank and in which community credit replaces credit provided by banks, even though they are not sure that society will ultimately choose to go that way. Whenever they develop new features, they make sure it doesn't preclude that long term scenario, which might require minor tweaks to the proposed new functionality. The reason they don't focus on this is that they think it is too early for it, the network needs to grow first. That is the function of gateways, which only serve to bootstrap the network and whose use is not mandatory even now.

They agreed it was quite possible that as the network grew, people would establish enough peer-to-peer trust relationships to make gateways superfluous and they would welcome that. They also agreed that it was possible some people would still choose to use gateways even if they did become superfluous, possibly for greater privacy. They confirmed that this would mean avoiding direct use of Ripple by such end users, in which case for them the Ripple network would function as a distributed interbank settlement system. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Rippling is through trust lines. XRP does not require trust lines. Therefore, when a value movement goes through a market maker and thereby uses XRP as a bridge currency, the ‘network of trusted associates’ is broken, and it is no longer ‘rippling’. The addition of XRP to RipplePay therefore changed the definition of ‘rippling’ and downgraded it's salience. The default off position of the toggle switch did so even further.

Sort of. Note that there need not necessarily be a market maker involved, it could be any user, and that the IOUs involved still need to form a chain of trusted associates. Also note that while XRP would typically be the most liquid bridge currency, it doesn't have to be. Depending on whether Ripple Classic had already implemented forex (as I said David Schwartz wasn't sure), this is indeed a change to the rippling mechanism, but the system including forex is still called rippling. It did not downgrade the salience of rippling, it increased its power. The flag you're talking about doesn't actually disable rippling, it merely disables rippling between *two* trust lines that *both* have the flag set. This flag was added for the benefit of market makers, but anyone can set or clear it as they see fit.

Any account that issues IOUs is fulfilling the role of a gateway (be it formal, manual or mini). There is no way that value can enter or exit the Ripple network without an account to issue representative IOUs….such a role is defined as a gateway.

That is a vacuous and pointless definition. It is certainly true that all IOUs have an issuer which is identified by a specific account, but the definition of a gateway is a business that issues and redeems IOUs as a business practice. The various roles in the Ripple ecosystem can be distinguished at an ecosystem level, but not at the protocol level.

It is evident that account holders at Fidor bank will be using the Ripple network to move their money about without even knowing they are using Ripple. They will never need to setup trust lines. Their value entrance to the network (called a gateway) is essential, however whereas explicitly stated trust is not.

For those who only enter the system through gateways (in the stricter non-vacuous sense), yes gateways are necessary. For those who don't, they aren't. Note that Fidor users still need to trust Fidor, even if they don't have to say so explicitly in Ripple. Also note that they would not be using Ripple directly, so the gateway isn't only acting as a gateway, it also acts as a proxy, adding a non-Ripple layer on top of Ripple. Which is fine, great even, but that doesn't change the property of the Ripple protocol that as far as non-XRP assets are concerned, it is based around IOUs and trust lines, just as it has always been.

I am confident that most people would agree that the existing concept section is not as readable or understandable to laymen as my proposal, which is clearly cited from an article that is aptly named Ripple Explained. It is not of my own making. If you have a current published source that explains Ripple in a more readable manner or provides additional information, feel free to vet it here in the talk pages. Anything prior to Ripple becoming open source (Sept 26, 2013) should be considered conjecture on the part of the author. PirateButtercup (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not claiming any literary qualities for this section and I'm totally open to improving its wording if necessary. Let's have some other editors chime in and see if it needs improvement, and if so how. My own efforts at that are being hampered by the need to go very slowly, making one small, sourced change at a time so we can have a focussed discussion. Even with this approach we're still having massive discussions. The incremental approach is necessitated by your frequent deletions, motivated by a whole range of ever-changing reasons, but somehow always involving deletion of my material or wholesale replacement by other material that coincidentally always removes the focus on IOUs and trust lines and restores the supposed necessity of gateways. This makes me wonder if that isn't really your primary focus, with the other arguments being secondary. I have repeatedly explained my concerns, and I may be mistaken, but I see no attempt on your part to accommodate my concerns and to build on my good faith edits. Instead I see deletions and wholesale replacement. I don't find that very constructive. I have been trying to add back the information that I added months ago and which was accepted into the consensus previously. I didn't watch closely enough while user Rippleport (another single-purpose account who disappeared after being blocked, just before you entered the scene, but who you say isn't you) deleted my changes. I find this all very frustrating. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A while ago User:Chrisarnesen offered to help improve the article. Let's ask him if he can help improve the wording of the Concept section. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello editors. Unfortunately I'm a bit out of the loop on Ripple and crypto stuff these days as I've been busy with a new (non-crypto-related) job. I can't weigh in myself here in a meaningful way, but I might know somebody who can. I reached out to a guy I know who's a technical writer on staff at Ripple Labs and asked him to contribute. I also brought this page to the attention of the folks on the Bitcoin Foundation Education Committee via my primer on editing Wikipedia. Hopefully that'll bring you some help. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 19:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could find some time simply for improving the quality of the prose, no special Ripple knowledge needed, that would be great, but if you don't have the time, then that's just the way it is. I'm not sure involving someone from Ripple Labs constitutes a conflict of interests, but it could help clarify what Ripple is and isn't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure, COI doesn't preclude editing. Actually COI need not even be disclosed though I myself am a full discloser of all my interests User:Chrisarnesen. In this case the guy I reached out to is not an expert in Ripple so much as an expert in writing about Ripple who I hope will help improve this article. Similarly the Education Committee is just a group of folks unified by their desire to educate people on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Chris Arnesen 20:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out an error that was made regarding ‘all assets represented as IOUs’. I waited exactly 2 months for someone to fix it. When I deleted it, my change was reversed within minutes … before I could even rectify a blatantly obvious problem.

I didn't just delete it, I fixed the problem by mentioning the difference between XRP and non-XRP assets. This distinction had been in the section before you deleted it and before I started adding back items one by one so we can have a productive discussion.

The Concept section representation that is being defended by Martin Merjering is poorly and/or inadequately sourced. Instead, the source he provided is now being paraphrased nearly verbatim with minimal subjective influence. It is my understanding that there is no need for a consensus to rectify poorly sourced material.

In what way is it poorly sourced? You can challenge the source and then we can discuss it, but you can't just delete it. You can add citation needed tags wherever you think more sources are needed.

Again, If there is a current published source that explains Ripple in a more readable manner or provides additional information, feel free to vet it here in the talk pages. Anything prior to Ripple becoming open source (Sept 26, 2013) should be considered conjecture on the part of the author as there is no way that they could know for certain. Further revisions on behalf of Martin Merjering with inadequately-sourced, low-readability discourse will be viewed as initiating an ‘edit war’. In such an event, appropriate measures will have to be taken.PirateButtercup (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person could take my very patient and constructive approach to this as edit-warring. As for your own actions, I'm not so sure. If you want to test your theory, you are welcome to do so. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The discourse you created is not supported by the citation you provided. The paraphrased text I posted closely mirrors the article. You are either being too liberal in your interpretation of the article's content or you are not providing a source relevant to your writing. In no way can it be interpreted as a superior indirect quote or a reasonable paraphrasing. We are both using the same source. It will be self evident to anyone reviewing the source and the 2 writings which one better represents it and which one is skewed by POV and sesquipedalian wording. According to the Wikipedia page "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Clearly this content has been repeatedly overridden...ergo...it's edit-warring. If you'd like a week to re-write and re-cite your contribution with a contemporary source, there is no particular hurry. PirateButtercup (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific and add cn/dubious-discuss tags to the individual sentences or parts of sentences that you think are incorrect or insufficiently sourced? I'd like to think that at least part of the section is fairly uncontroversial. In addition, most of the section has entered the consensus already and much more had entered the consensus before it was deleted when I wasn't watching closely enough for a fairly long period. I accept that I cannot revert to that earlier version, because it is my own fault I didn't watch the page more closely. For what it's worth, I don't think insisting on BRD constitutes edit-warring, while violating it does, but I'm not an expert on Wikipedia procedure. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Outside help

I've asked User:EdJohnston for help finding a neutral third party to help us solve the long-standing content dispute between PirateButtercup and myself. I'm not sure what the right approach is, but I feel some guidance from an uninvolved editor who is very familiar with the rules could be helpful. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly welcome anyone to review the source material and the 2 proposed representations of it in the Concept section. I further welcome their opinion as to which writing is not only more readable but (more importantly) accurately portrays the information gleaned from the source. PirateButtercup (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're open to this. It looks as if the two of us weren't going to be able to resolve this without outside help. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

PirateButtercup, if you have two 'proposed representations' for the Concept section can you give both of them here? Include all your citations as well. You can use {{reflist-talk}} to make a temporary reference list. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I am sorry, I am much more of an SME than a wikipedian. I don't yet understand the finer points of using {{reflist-talk}} to make a temporary reference list. If you (EdJohnston) are not familiar with the topic, I recommend that you read the article "Ripple Explained" first (http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-medieval-banking-digital-twist/), which we have both cited as a source.

Suggestion 1

A person logs on to his or her preferred Ripple gateway, deposits money to it, and instructs that gateway to release funds to a second party via their gateway. The second party collects his or her funds. It is therefore possible to transmit anything without moving it, so long as both gateways are set up to deal in it. If either gateway is prepared to convert one type of asset to another (ie: act as a trader, or ‘market maker’), then a person can put cash in his or her gateway and the second party can receive a completely different currency.

If the two gateways do not have a trust relationship with one another, the transaction will still work so long as there are intermediary gateways who can form a chain of trust for the object being passed (cash, or gold, or whatever).

The Ripple algorithm tries to find the shortest trust path between the gateways.‘Ripples’ (XRP) are used if the path-finding algorithm cannot find a chain of trust between the two gateways. Within the Ripple network, you can convert anything to a number of XRPs, transfer the XRPs, then convert back at the end gateway, if needed.

In Ripple, a public ledger of accounts, balances, and IOUs are kept updated simultaneously in the Ripple network, which is a distributed collection of servers around the world. The servers agree on changes by consensus (effectively: “Do we all agree this transaction can take place?”). There is no central ‘authority’ who says yes or no to transactions, and anyone can be a server by running free software on their computer.

-from http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-medieval-banking-digital-twist/

Suggestion 2

In Ripple, users make payments between themselves by using cryptographically signed transactions denominated in either Ripple's internal currency named XRP or in arbitrary other assets (including real-world assets such as dollars, gold, air miles etc). For XRP-denominated transactions Ripple can make use of its internal ledger. For payments denominated in all other assets, the Ripple ledger only records the amounts owed by one user to another. In this way, all these assets are represented as debt. Since Ripple only keeps the records in its ledger and has no real-world enforcement power, this requires trust. Users have to specify which other users they trust and to what maximum amount. This can be specified for each asset type individually.

When a non-XRP payment is made between two users that trust each other, the balance of the mutual credit line is adjusted, subject to limits set by each user. In order to send assets between users that have not directly established a trust relationship, the system tries to find a path between the two users such that each link of the path is between two users that do have a trust relationship. All balances along the path are then adjusted simultaneously and atomically. This mechanism of making payments through a network of trusted associates is named 'rippling'. It is a digital version of the age-old hawala system and has been referred to as 'Facebook for money'.

-also from http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-medieval-banking-digital-twist/

-in addition http://bitcoinmagazine.com/3506/introducing-ripple (This article was based on the theoretical white paper. It was written on 26 Feb 2013. The protocol became open source on 26 Sept 2013. As the source code for Ripple wasn't even released until 6 months after the article, it contains measurable supposition and speculation.)

The former is not only more readable, but adheres closer to the source (that both suggestions cite). This is by no means a philosophical dispute. Martin's understanding of the system is heavily influenced by a pre-2012 manifestation known as RipplePay. His understanding of Ripple did not evolve with the fundamental changes that were inacted by Ripple Labs in 2013.PirateButtercup (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a lot to say about this, and you won't be surprised to learn I disagree with some of the things you said, but I think I'll wait for a response from Ed first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still acting as an admin here, so I won't be taking a position on the content. If you guys agree that the above is a good summary of the dispute, we should consider going ahead with an RfC. My only concern is that the dispute would ideally be boiled into one sentence, so that outsiders can see what is at stake. If there is more than one dispute, we could break the RfC into multiple sections and ask people to vote on several items. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh OK, in that case, I don't think this is a good summary of the problem. I'll try to summarise, and that's going to take some time, but I'll start on it right away. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two main problems: first of all a content dispute over the role of gateways in the Ripple system and secondly what I see as disruptive editing, ad-hominems and gamesmanship on the part of PirateButtercup. I think it is far too early for a vote, and I was hoping someone could help as a moderator, making sure people stick by the rules and making constructive suggestions that the two of us might not be able to get to by ourselves. I think I'm going to have to provide more details than that, but I don't want to go off and have to write a wall of text first only to find it not being helpful. Maybe we can do it in dialog form instead? Also, it might be helpful to have a look at sections 20 (Rippling) and 24 (Concept Section) of this talk page to see what the problem is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are willing to participate in a content RfC then you should only talk about content, not about anyone's behavior. You should get to the point quickly. Do not give people reading assignments (such as look at section 20). Just tell them in a few words what the dispute is. Wall-of-text questions and responses won't get anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem, but I'm not really asking for an RfC, I'm asking for a moderator / mediator, or really just advice on what to do next. My reference to the other sections on this talk page wasn't intended so much for an RfC, but more aimed at you as a potential moderator, in order to avoid having to duplicate the material. If that's inconvenient for you, I'll be more than happy to summarise. It seems to me that the two issues (content and behaviour) might need two different approaches. Let me explain a bit more about the situation, maybe you can give more specific advice based on that, or maybe refer me to some more appropriate venue.

Last december I made a number of edits to the page to improve its factual accuracy. I think the most complete version was that of December 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&oldid=586635206), but I had been making edits before that, which had made it into the consensus. After that changes were made that I disagreed with, but didn't notice in time. Those changes present a simplified narrative of the Ripple system in terms of gateways. This is correct as far as it goes, but I wanted to make sure that a fuller description of the underlying protocol was included, in which gateways play no role. I'm not seeking to delete material, but to add (sourced) material.

I do accept that the changes to my edits had made it into the consensus, so I couldn't just revert them after weeks had passed. Therefore, I announced I intended to restore my text, waited for objections and when none arrived I went ahead and made a Bold edit. That was subsequently reverted, and fruitless discussion followed. I decided I had to make smaller changes to give people the opportunity to make more focussed complaints that we could discuss individually. I've been doing that very slowly, so people had plenty of time to make those complaints.

If this new consensus is now swept away by simply replacing it with a new text, then I'll have to start all over again without having received any specific feedback as to what's wrong with it. I don't think I've even got halfway through my original material, let alone additional material which is needed. I've asked PB to mark the individual sentences he believes are incorrect or insufficiently sourced, but so far that hasn't happened. I feel we need someone who can enforce the rules in order to have meaningful interaction. Bringing in more people could certainly help, but we haven't even been having productive conversation.

I'm trying to keep this short, but it's quite a bit of text already, so I'll stop here. I appreciate your time and efforts here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not working as a mediator here. I only signed up to help create an WP:RFC. If you don't want an RfC, then you can pursue other options. See WP:Dispute resolution. If it does not appear that either of you is sincerely trying to negotiate an agreement then blocks for edit warring are possible. Admins are not here to separate parties who are resolved to fight each other. Our time is precious. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not looking for an RfC (yet). I only contacted you because you were the one who handled the last incident and might have some advice. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm certainly not resolved to fight PB and I hope the same is true for him. I'll have a look at WP:Dispute resolution to see who else might be more appropriate to contact. Thanks again for your time. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This matter needs to go to the next level. It is clearly evident that Suggestion 1 adheres to the source and has a higher degree of readability. It is further evident that the information in Suggestion 2 originates from an outdated source that is based on the conjecture of the time. There have not been any publications to support it's suppositions since the protocol became open source. And the wording is unnecessarily complex. I will familiarize myself with all of the dispute options over the next week. Thank you for your time Ed. PirateButtercup (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

PB, as you well know what this is really about is the role of IOUs and trustlines vs your claimed necessity of gateways, not about copy-editing or conformance to a source. You need to be working towards a consensus that takes everybody's concerns into account. You are the only person here claiming that gateways are necessary. At least one other editor besides me has told you you are wrong about this, and I've already told you I've discussed this in depth with senior Ripple Labs employees. The Ripple developer documentation also makes this clear, as does a little playing around with the Ripple client. You cannot suppress validly sourced material to push a POV. Rippleport (who you've repeatedly insisted isn't you) has publicly said he made his changes in order to make people think of Ripple in terms of institutional banking even though he agreed the peer to peer model was still supported. That's a perfectly legitimate POV to have as an individual, but it is not legitimate to impose it on a Wikipedia article. Insisting on removing the peer-to-peer issuance model, which still is and always has been the heart of Ripple, is disruptive editing, which can lead to being blocked. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As my previous attempt to involve more editors hasn't really helped, I'm thinking about recruiting more editors from well-known Ripple forums. Because I don't want to fall afoul of WP:CANVAS, I've asked a question about this at the Help Desk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Check out this page on the official Ripple site that spells out how IOU-based gateway-less operation is still supported. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also check out the official Ripple Labs developer documentation: "When you make a payment in a currency other than XRP, you also need to include the Ripple address of the issuer. The issuer is the gateway or other entity who holds the foreign-currency funds on your behalf. For foreign-currency payments, the amount will look something like this: 100+USD+rNsJKf3kaxvFvR8RrDi9P3LBk2Zp6VL8mp." Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also check out this recent post by Ryan Fugger: "[...] The new Ripple isn't trying to grow the network in the same way as I was with Ripplepay, etc., but technically there's no reason it can't be used in the same way as Ripplepay. Just go create a wallet at Ripple.com, and you can add trust lines and make payments exactly as you could with Ripplepay. So technically it fulfills all the qualifications necessary to implement the original Ripple concept [...] So instead they are focusing more on building a network of people and groups who are dedicated to managing their Ripple presence as businesses for the benefit of others in the network (and their own profit, of course), which are being called gateways, and tend to be run more like traditional deposit-taking institutions. This helps connect Ripple to the existing banking system. There is no requirement for this type of arrangement in the technical protocols though, it's just a more practical way of growing the network, by piggybacking on what's already out there, and beating them at their own game before introducing our own. [...] But don't for a minute think that we can't use the new Ripple.com network as a mutual-credit financial social network like I originally envisioned. Daniel Levy, a prominent user on Villages.cc, is building just such a service, backed by the new Ripple, and I hope others will as well." Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Creation of New Pages

It has gotten to the point that this page must be divided. I recommend the following 3 pages:

1. Ripple (Transaction Protocol)

2. Ripple (Payment & Exchange Network)

3. Ripple Labs

CrossCoin has established an accelerator program to develop the RTXP protocol. Ripple Labs has released a developer’s portal. Forks using the protocol for other purposes (voting, competing exchanges, etc.) are popping up. At minimum, this page needs to be renamed to reflect what exactly it is about. The RTXP protocol is for more than just payments. Organizations other than Ripple Labs are using it. Your thoughts? And if you agree, how exactly do you start a new page in Wikipedia? Cheers!PirateButtercup (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new page is pretty easy once you are logged in. If you put the name in the top right search box it will suggest similar pages in case a suitable one has already been created. Then you click the link after "You may create the page ....." and it gives you various ways of doing it. But personally I do not think it needs splitting up yet as it is still quite a small article. And do not be surprised if someone proposes it for deletion if you do create one. On the other hand I think a page in "Simple English" would be handy. In the UK the government is trying to improve the teaching of computing in schools. But besides that it might be helpful for non-English speakers who do not yet have a page in their own language. Mind you this is probably a pretty difficult subject to explain to even a very intelligent 12 year old. I will start it off with a couple of sentences in the hope that more talented writers then me will correct, expand and improve it. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. It may be a wee bit too soon. You'll note that Wikipedia (German) has a page just for XRP....which might not be a bad 4th page. It's not so much the size of the article as it is the overlapping of concepts containing the letters 'ripple*': protocol, 'coin', path finding tool, payment network, company, server, etc. PirateButtercup (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

One option for collaborative efforts at a new page, when it may be premature to go live, is to name the article Draft:Ripple Labs rather than Ripple Labs. You edit it just like normal, it has a Talk page, and when it's looking good and has proper citations, it can be renamed to a live version. I just made a superbasic draft copying the Ripple Labs paragraph from this article. Agyle (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Agyle for creating the page. I feel the Ripple Labs page is now ready to roll. I need someone to help me with the RL logo as I'm having issues (see RL Talk Page). Does anyone object to making the page live? If not, Agyle, can you save me the learning curve and help me in this regard? Also, if anyone has sources regarding RL donations to Project A.B.L.E (Aid on Behalf of Literacy and Education), New Jersey Needs You (peer mentoring program) or GiveDirectly (Aid to Africa)....it would be appreciated if you could add stuff about them. F. Cheers :-) PirateButtercup (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No one has made any comments or suggestions about Draft:Ripple Labs. Agyle fixed some stuff though (thanks :-). I don't know if I'm doing this right. I intend to create a new page called Ripple Labs and simply copy and paste Draft:Ripple Labs there. Should I delete the Draft:Ripple Labs? If so, is it just a matter of deleting the content? advice is requested....PirateButtercup (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that the Stellar Foundation has forked Ripple, it might be a good time to consider splitting the page again. Stellar, the payment and exchange network, uses the Ripple Transmission Protocol (RTXP) with some minor modifications.[1] Someone has already proposed a Stellar_(payment_protocol) page, since deleted, as though the Stellar protocol were a separate protocol from the Ripple protocol. The deletion is being discussed on RHaworth's talk page

It makes sense to adopt the format proposed at the top of this section but also cover the Stellar extensions to RTXP within the Ripple (Transaction Protocol) page. This would leave additional pages to cover both the Ripple (Payment and Exchange Network) as well as a Ripple Labs page without conflating the parts of Ripple and Stellar that are completely separate.

Then, there would be a structure in place to create pages for Stellar (Payment and Exchange Network) and Stellar Development Foundation. If the importance of the latter two grow to the point that justifies separate pages, the full structure could be as follows:

1. Ripple (Transaction Protocol) [covering both native RTXP and Stellar extensions]

2. Ripple (Payment & Exchange Network)

3. Ripple Labs

4. Stellar (Payment & Exchange Network)

5. Stellar Development Foundation

Unless Stellar loses steam, the issue will keep popping up. 69.94.201.250 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about de-facto centralisation

I've just partially deleted a Bold edit that made a claim that Ripple's consensus process was (inherently?) centralised. I'm not aware of any evidence to this effect, though allegations abound. Per WP:BRD we need to discuss this first and obtain a consensus before the edit can be reinserted into the article.

What is certainly true, is that currently very few people run independent validators, meaning that a small number of validators associated with Ripple Labs and their business partners currently determine the consensus. But that's not what the edit I deleted said. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, let's try to establish consensus :) My main point is that Ripple's consensus model requires convergence on the UNL lists, not that 'very few people run independent nodes'. My edit claimed that the model is not decentralized - I didn't intend to mean that Ripple is centralized either. The not decentralized claim is supported by an article on VICE motherboard [2]:

The process of consensus also poses its issues, since the process of validation is distributed but not decentralized. In theory, users can pick and choose their own network of validators to ensure transaction integrity. But Ripple readily admits that “in practice, most people will use the default UNL supplied by their client.” Similar to the state of Ripple currency, this list of validators will be maintained by Ripple Labs, which promises to maintain a diverse selection of validators they can "trust to not collude to defraud us." Of course, poor management of the validator pool will undermine the entire system, prompting users to flee, but again, it ultimately amounts to a centralized system and power in the hands of a few.

Bitcoin Magazine [3] describes Ripple as "Although it’s not technically a decentralized cryptocurrency, it is open source, and it’s not exactly centralized, either.".

CoinDesk's article on consensus models, such as the one used in Ripple, refers to it as 'distributed' and compares it to decentralized systems like bitcoin. [4]. Chris Larsen of Ripple Labs, in an interview with Fox Business, explicitly refers to Ripple as distributed and contrasts it with bitcoin's decentralized process. [5]

I believe that "The consensus process allows for payments, exchanges and remittance in a distributed process" should have additional clarification on its nature (an average reader may assume the process is trustless and decentralized, like with bitcoin mining). Of course, being in the lead section it should be succinct. Since mentioning "not decentralized" can be read as "centralized", perhaps those terms should be avoided. I propose "The consensus process allows for payments, exchanges and remittance in a distributed process, however still requiring some degree of trust unlike other processes." ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: The original version said 'without relying on a central clearing house', which is a direct quote from the VICE article. However, merely including that line gives the impression that it is decentralized, and I feel it is taking the quote out of context (of the clarification and criticism of consensus). So I think the original quote isn't suitable. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the consensus mechanism is currently de-facto centralised (as arguably it is with Bitcoin with the advent of large pools and industrial scale mining), as I said above, but the wording as you proposed it doesn't capture that as clearly as the article you cited. Your proposed wording makes it sound as if the Ripple consensus mechanism is inherently centralised. There's really no telling what would happen if large numbers of users started using Ripple. It could lead to an explosion of peer-to-peer rippling and it could lead to large numbers of people running validators and choosing their own UNL. We just don't know. The Ripple consensus mechanism isn't inherently *technically* centralised, and the real-world economic incentives surrounding it are too complex to allow for confident predictions. Another important distinction is between trust in validators and trust in counterparties. I have a feeling that is what Chris Larsen was referring to. After all, Ripple Labs have been promoting the gateway model, even though they spell out unambiguously that the grassroots peer-to-peer rippling mechanism as it existed in Ripple Classic is still fully supported, just as it has always been. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note that my concern is over the distinction between decentralised and distributed, I welcome your mention of the concerns over the *soundness* of the consensus mechanism. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Large numbers of people running validators and choosing their own UNL will not result in consensus - consensus requires the majority of the network to share the same validators (whatever is enough to reach quorum). This makes it 'more centralized' in my opinion - if you trust validators that are not shared by the rest of the network, you'll end up with a fork. This assertion has been made by bitcoin lead developer Gregory Maxwell, who I think can be considered as an 'established expert' as per WG:UGC despite it being a forum post (I'll dig that out later). I agree that Chris Larsen may be referring to counterparty trust instead. Still, I think the current distributed statement should be clarified in some way, and I don't think mentioning that it still requires some degree of trust implies it's centralized.

Regarding this being separate from concerns over soundness, I understand! That line re soundness in the lead should be reworded actually...☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that large numbers of people choosing their own UNLs could lead to forks, in fact that's one of my own main concerns about the Ripple consensus mechanism. I don't think it is necessarily the case that people need to agree on a majority of validators, though there does need to be sufficient overlap. It's a difficult question that requires more scrutiny and research. We can probably dig up some quotes by skeptics on the one hand and Ripple Labs' David Schwartz on the other hand to give the reader an impartial overview of the concerns and the state of the debate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, although I'm happy to wait for secondary sources before inclusion of that topic. Regarding the de-facto centralization wording, here is my second proposal: Remove "Some critics say the process, while distributed, is not decentralised." from the lead, add "The consensus model is distributed, and is neither technically decentralized nor centralizated. While users may assemble their own UNL nodes, Ripple Labs acknowledges that most people will use the default UNL supplied by their client." in the 'consensus ledger' section. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for now, we can always tweak the wording later if we want to. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fully decentralized process?

@Mmeijeri, I'm curious what you mean by "thus create a fully decentralised consensus process"? The consensus model is not decentralized, it is distributed. The consensus whitepaper (which does not mention gateways) refers to it as being distributed. There is a separate issue with the default UNL lists giving Ripple Labs some control over the distributed process. Since Ripple is officially mentioned as distributed, I think we should avoid calling it decentralized. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the precise definitions, which we haven't given so far. You are perhaps aware of the anti-Ripple campaign of one TradeFortress, who kept claiming Ripple was distributed but not decentralised. By that he meant that validation wasn't totally decentralised in the sense that all nodes aren't equal: some are validators, while others are not. While there wasn't a single company behind the whole system, in his view there was a cartel of companies controlling the network. This point of view is simply incorrect, anyone can run a validator, and Ripple Labs and its business partners have no special control over the network. Anyone can choose their UNL, making everyone equal. The difference with Bitcoin is that Ripple nodes can choose not to trust specific validators. Of course, in practice people do not choose their UNLs themselves and don't want to risk forks, not many people run validators etc, but that's not an inherent property of the system.

In addition, there has been a campaign by some Ripple enthusiasts to "dumb down" explanations of the trust-based nature rippling system, preferring to explain everything in terms of accounts, balances and gateways rather than trust relationships. Some even went so far as to deny the rippling system still exists. The intent here is not to scare away newcomers with difficult explanations of the fully decentralised peer-to-peer nature of the trust network, and to pretend its really like an intermediary based distributed (but not fully decentralised) network of bank-like entities and consumers.

Ideally the article should explain all of this, but of course we need to find good sources for it. My main concern right now is to dispel any notion that Ripple is inherently (rather than de-facto) less decentralised than Bitcoin, or that there is a privileged class of validators or gateways. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that. Indeed, everyone can join in the network without technical barriers. I disagree that ripple is decentralized through - at any point in time the nodes that have the highest trusted overlap becomes the deciding nodes, and the decisions of any validator not in the core are disregarded as 'the system aims to decrease dissimilarity between the proposals toward zero'. In effect, we have a theoretically decentralized system leading to a distributed system no matter what the network topology. I think theymos sums up my main concern well: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=201794.msg2107958#msg2107958]

This is different from a choice of UNL - with any network UNL set, only the most overlapping nodes will get to vote. I'm sure there's a mathematical equation to calculate which nodes. When you consider that some nodes have superior status due to emergent properties of consensus (even this was decided in a decentralized manner), I think Ripple is less decentralized when compared to other systems. In bitcoin mining, everyone gets their vote (hashing) and their vote counts fully - there is just quantization.

I still think this system is very innovative and useful, but I don't think it should be called decentralized (at least, without more explanation). ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think this is what the Bitcoin Magazine, et al, refers to when they call it distributed or neither decentralized nor centralized. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not really true that only the overlapping nodes get to vote, every node affects its neighbours and therefore its indirect neighbours too. Nodes with a central position in the trust graph would likely have more influence, but in Bitcoin something similar happens: pools / miners with a lot of hashing power have more influence than ones with less hashing power. I don't think we should definitively state that the Ripple system is neither centralised nor decentralised without more precise definitions + supporting citations from reliable sources. We need these in any event. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not understanding it correctly (please let me know if I am), but say you have A in your UNL, and A has B in its UNL. B is a node that is generally shared by the rest of the network. B does not have A in its UNL, and hence all A can do is 'vote' for B, but any consensus decisions made by A has no impact and is not even acknowledged by B, as the UNL relationship is one-way. So, in this example, the consensus decisions are made entirely by B. Is this correct? In nay case, I agree with not stating that bit without more precise definitions and references. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated material in the concept section?

@User Earflaps:

You've recently added an outdated tag to the concept section, and said much of the material may no longer true. I think it is still accurate, despite Ripple Labs' recent focus on the banking sector. Some of the formulations may have to change a bit, but at a protocol level the trust-based rippling of IOUs still applies.

A while ago there was a campaign on the Ripple discussion forums to deemphasise the IOU-based nature of non-XRP assets, perhaps as a reaction to criticism from Bitcoin evangelists. Since then there have been efforts here on this page to deny the fact that it is still the same IOU mechanism that underpins the Bitcoin ledger as well as all sorts of efforts to remove material on other grounds. We cannot let propaganda efforts lead to the removal of accurate material or to putting a spin on the truth.

I don't think your efforts here would lead to such a thing, but I just wanted to urge caution, and to make sure if attempts to insert a biased perspective resume we'll resist it.Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

you sound a bit shell-shocked, my dear. :b Was this perchance the location of a great battle, with a great deal of emotional collateral damage? looking at the neverending wall of TLDR on the talk page above, it definitely seems so. I'm not here to do battle, just help clean up a messy page. Earflaps (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it was quite a battle. And no worries, I welcome your edits. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the name Ripplepay, I think the system was always called Ripple and classic.ripplepay.com still displays that name. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There are some changes you made to the Concepts section and some changes that still need to be made that I'd like to discuss. I'd like to update the section to reflect the fact that Ripple Labs is now emphasising the use of gateways, while making clear that person to person rippling is still supported, in fact the ledger does not distinguish between various kinds of users (consumer, gateway, merchant, market maker etc). Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've glanced through your edits earlier on the page, and you seem to know your stuff with the gateways (way better than me). If you'd like to bring some sources/sentences to the table, I'd be happy to help with the wikifiying (even blogs as placeholder sources would work, since I didn't gather that the newspaper sources really cover/grasp that level of detail). Earflaps (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ripple (payment protocol). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150604061104/https://download.ripple.com/ to https://download.ripple.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140210095959/https://ripplecharts.com/grid to https://ripplecharts.com/grid

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs Update

This page needs update with recent events, see wikipedia jp with english links:

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_%28%E6%94%AF%E6%89%95%E3%81%84%E3%82%B7%E3%82%B9%E3%83%86%E3%83%A0%29#Ripple_Labs_.E3.81.8B.E3.82.89_Ripple_.E3.81.B8.EF.BC.882015.EF.BD.9E16.E5.B9.B4.EF.BC.89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepx (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Britto and David Schwartz had no connection to eDonkey

Hi. I'm the David Schwartz referred to in the page. The page says that Arthur Britto and I had a role in the creation of eDonkey. This is not true. The linked article cited as a source for this claim says no such thing. Neither of us worked with Jed McCaleb on eDonkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelKatz (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Is XRP a cryptocurrency?

A recent modification of this page by Meebey suggest XRP might not be crypto-currency but a token. But this suggestion is wrong, xrp serves as a medium of exchange and store of value - a currency which is cruptpgraphically secured. XRP is no doubt a cryptocurrency.

XRP is mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency but I'd like to have other opinions on this.

Cyptocurrency definition on this page is:

"A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange using cryptography to secure the transactions and in somes cases like Bitcoin and Litecoi to control the creation of additional units of the currency."

XRP matches the definition of "a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange using cryptography to secure the transactions".

The distribution of XRP is also controlled by cryptographic rules. https://ripple.com/insights/ripple-to-place-55-billion-xrp-in-escrow-to-ensure-certainty-into-total-xrp-supply/

--Keepx (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Freeware

"Freeware" is used in the text. Maybe "free software" is more appropriate. This is because freeware implies closed-source software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:2601:700:99A5:12A7:E7EC:5A16 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Ripple is a real-time gross settlement system (RTGS), currency exchange and remittance network by Ripple. It is built upon a distributed open source Internet protocol, consensus ledger and native cryptocurrency called XRP. Released in 2012, Ripple purports to enable "secure, instantly and nearly free global financial transactions of any size with no chargebacks." It supports tokens representing fiat currency, cryptocurrency, commodity or any other unit of value such as frequent flier miles or mobile minutes.[4][5] At its core, Ripple is based around a shared, public database or ledger,[6] which uses a consensus process that allows for payments, exchanges and remittance in a distributed process.

The network can operate without the Ripple company.[7] Among validators are companies, internet service providers, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[8][9]

Used by companies such as UniCredit, UBS and Santander, Ripple has been increasingly adopted by banks and payment networks as settlement infrastructure technology,[10] with American Banker explaining that "from banks' perspective, distributed ledgers like the Ripple system have a number of advantages over cryptocurrencies like bitcoin," including price and security.[11]

On 6 Jan 2018, the market capitalization of XRP was 123 billion USD, making it the second largest cryptocurrency by market cap.[12][13] Kellymj46 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted recent page move from Ripple (payment protocol) to XRP Ledger (payment protocol)

I've reverted Benwhale1's recent page move from Ripple (payment protocol) to XRP Ledger (payment protocol). As a Google search reveals 12.80 million results for ripple payment and 4.53 million for xrp ledger, "XRP Ledger" could not possibly be the common name for this payment protocol.

I've also reverted Benwhale1's addition of spam links (here and here). — Newslinger talk 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, guy, check this out - and then chill out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3c2:8280:1db0:7475:54de:659:ec9f (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Putting back XRP Ledger as the name, and revert change that destroyed my work.

As an answer to Newslinger revert of my edit :

- as seen on the developer website, which is the reference/main source for all people looking for information to use and build software on top of the open-source XRP ledger : XRP Ledger is the name. Most people don't know that Ripple protocol is the former name XRP Ledger Overview

- using google search ( that you didn't provide any link to ) and comparing "XRP Ledger" with "Ripple payment " isn't a proof of anything because : " ripple payment " search results includes also the result related to ripple , the company, which provides payment softwares and solution.

Hence, among those 12.80 million results , it is impossible to know which one are related to the XRP Ledger /Ripple Protocol as an open source platform and which are related to Ripple, the company, and its software and business news. Most news related to Ripple software such as xRapid, xCurrent and others will include keywords " ripple " and " payment". As it can be seen among the first pages of result on Google, most of the link are business news related to Ripple the company, and its customer using software such as xCurrent and xRapid : these news are not directly about the open source XRP Ledger

- Finally, I will add that a look at google trends shows that much more searches are done for " XRP Ledger " than " Ripple payment " either if you look at the last 12 months or the last 5 years. source : Google trends : "XRP ledger " ; " Ripple payment"

About the links you categorized as " spam ", they are not autopromotion nore spam (i'm not related to these websites in any way ): the XRP Community Blog " By the XRP Community, for the #XRPCommunity" " brings together multiple bloggers from the XRP community in a collaborative effort on one platform, and the " XRP fudd bingo " is a website made by one of biggest contributor to the XRP community : WietseWind : he created multiple tools : ledger.exposed that allows to explore all XRP wallet, XRP fudd bingo that explains some misconceptions about the XRP ledger, and also the XRP tip bot, used by hundred of people to send XRP tips on twitter, discord and reddit.

So these are not " spam " links : these are actual tools helping growing the XRP ecosystem, supported by many and also done without any financial retribution. How can I talk about the XRP community if I cannot explain or quote the main initiatives made inside it by its members ? Benwhale1 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the page should be renamed or not, but it needs to be done by consensus. Please discuss the change here first and stop edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please support your proposed changes with reliable sources. The sites you have referenced ("XRP Community Blog", "XRP FUD Bingo", a Twitter page, "ledger.exposed", and "XRP Tip Bot") are not reliable sources. I moved it back (under Wikipedia's process for undiscussed moves and as part of the edit, revert, discuss cycle) because your changes were not well-supported by reliable sources, and a couple of cursory Google searches led me to believe that your changes were questionable. Please read through Wikipedia's policy against original research. If another editor wants to propose the same changes, they should provide reliable sources to back up those proposals.

If you would like to move this page to a different title, and your move is disputed, you should request a move and gain consensus among other interested editors instead of edit warring. Please note that there is a one-revert rule active on this page due to general sanctions on cryptocurrency-related topics. According to the sanctions page, you also appear to be topic banned. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes - I've been topic banned due to my revert editing of the page. This was my first real editing work on wikipedia, so I guess there no excuse for the mistake I made regarding the " xrp community " " spam link", but i justified everything I did regarding the name changes on XRP Ledger / Ripple payment. Benwhale1 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have moved the page back as requested. If anyone still wants to move it, Wikipedia:Requested moves contains the information you need on the correct procedure. Benwhale1, heads up that your ban includes talk pages, you need to appeal your topic ban before posting here again. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"can not be shut down"?

So much misinformation in the opening section of this article. Firstly, it is a decentralized network - though the majority of the XRP is owned by one company, but the network is permissionless and has many independent operators who validate tramsactions.For now it is incorrect to say 1) it can be shutdown, and incorrect to say 2) it is centralized. More info @ https://developers.ripple.com/concepts.html

Most decentralised major cryptocurrency, see https://minivalist.cinn.app/ This provides a equal playing field amongst participants to submit transactions and orders to ledger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.254.184 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct name for the payments protocol. -- Suggested edit to XRP Ledger

Hello. There has been some contention over the correct title of the payments protocol, apparently due to a lack of a reliable and legitimate source.

I would humbly argue that the developers' documentation on the protocol is itself surely the most bona fide origin of information. -- https://developers.ripple.com/xrp-ledger-overview.html

To me, it is pretty clear that the payments protocol is now enrobed in the term 'XRP Ledger'. Previous documents (pre-2017) refer to the RCP (Ripple Consensus Protocol), but everything onwards and it is denoted the XRP Ledger. This dev portal linked above is regularly updated & can be safely assumed to contain the most relevant information (vs docs released in 2014, for example). I'll point out a few key excerpts from it to illustrate why it's evident that Ripple is solely the company with chief responsibility over the protocol, and that the name 'Ripple' for the protocol is antiquated:

"...the XRP Ledger also has a fully-functional accounting system for tracking and trading obligations denominated in any way users want, and an exchange built into the protocol."

"The XRP Ledger is a universal payment system..."

"Unlike other digital currency protocols,the XRP Ledger also allows users to..."

The last quote in particular indicates that the very people who built the system themselves now refer to the protocol as the XRP Ledger and not the 'Ripple payment protocol' or RCP. Not once in the documentation was the word 'Ripple' used to refer to anything other than the company. And the absence of any recent documentation or dev portal for anything by the name of Ripple Payment Protocol or RCP in itself speaks volumes. So, to me, it is clear as day what the name is - while RCP may have been the name once, it is not anymore.

https://developers.ripple.com/xrp-ledger-overview.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thmadhatter (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

​I've mentioned "XRP Ledger" as an alternative name in the lead section, and redirected XRP Ledger to this page. You're welcome to submit a requested move if you want to argue that "XRP Ledger" is the common name of this payment protocol. — Newslinger talk 18:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

electric consumption, associated costs of XRP and other cryptos

I just added a scientific study that compares XRP with other crypto assets and the visa network, using mathematical models. Source here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.227.219.18 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 00:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ripple (payment protocol) → XRP Ledger (payment protocol)

– Every new mention of the " Ripple Protocol " is now " XRP Ledger ", hence making it the most broadly used term to talk about the ledger. Here are a few sources to prove it:

- the XRP Ledger Portal, main ressource for all develloppers working on the XRP ledger : "The XRP Ledger is a decentralized cryptographic ledger powered by a network of peer-to-peer servers. The XRP Ledger is the home of XRP[...] " Every mention of the ledger is labelled under " XRP ledger " and not " Ripple protocol " anymore. https://developers.ripple.com/xrp-ledger-overview.html

- These documents are maintained by the people who created the XRP ledger, among them David Schwartz, one of the main architect of the Ripple protocol/XRPLedger, who also refer to the ledger as " XRP ledger ", see here : https://ripple.com/insights/the-inherently-decentralized-nature-of-xrp-ledger/

- the description of the ledger in the github repository that hosts the code of the ledger " Decentralized cryptocurrency blockchain daemon implementing the XRP Ledger in C++ " https://github.com/ripple/rippled

- Looking at google trends to compare " XRP Ledger " and " Ripple protocol" shows you there are much searches for " XRP Ledger", https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Ripple%20protocol,XRP%20ledger

Finally I would add that pretty much every big crypto news website such as Coindesk or tech website news like thenextweb now refers to the ledger as " XRP Ledger ".

These are multiples reasons of why the page name should be changed to " XRP Ledger", because it is now the most broadly used term to call the ledger. 89.227.219.18 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The proposed target should be XRP Ledger, not XRP Ledger (payment protocol), because "XRP Ledger" doesn't refer to any other topics covered on Wikipedia (WP:ATDAB). I'm not taking a stance on the proposed move at this time. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Article as its stands is almost entirely about the company, not the protocol. If we need an article titled XRP Ledger, it should be a new page with new content. KalHolmann (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I note there is a separate Ripple (company). This is about the currency/token as well as the network, "Ripple" is the common name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment So if it's the common name at the present moment, please bring proofs/reliable and recent sources that proves it is the case and oppose my claims, I quoted several reliable sources why you don't bring any sources to support your sayings.

About the fact that this article is "about the company " : it isn't, it's about the protocol and has always been, that's why there is a Ripple " company page ". We're here talking about a change in the way people denominate the ledger, not its nature: the ledger is the same from the time it was called " Ripple protocol", from the now moment where it's called " XRP ledger". Is nature is unchanged. The code in C++ is the same.If you think changing the name of the ledger changes its nature, then please explain why. And if you think this article is about the company, then it should be merged with Ripple(company), and not called Ripple (payment protocol).

I will detail more in depth of why it should be called " XRP ledger ". It should be called XRP Ledger because pretty much all the entities and people that interact with the ledger, wether it's people using it, building it, developing software on it ( here is another example of Coil, a company developing smart contracts on the XRP Ledger, and calling it that that way , or Witse Wind, an independant developer that built a tipping bot on the XRP ledger, that is also calling it this way ) or even medias talking about it are all refering as it as " XRP Ledger " ( see sources posted above ).

The denomination of an entity ( here this network/ledger ) is defined by the people interacting with it. I would like to know why it shouldn't be called that way if pretty much anyone that interacts with it accepted the new denomination ? That's like debating why we don't use words from the middle age to call things anymore : because people defined new denominations for objects & entities.

On top that, yes, the history past and present, of the XRP ledger can't be separated from Ripple story, since it was created by Ripple, and Ripple dev are the main contributors to its code. But it doesn't change the fact that it's an open source network, and that it now has a separated story from Ripple ( since people totally independant from Ripple ( MIT , CGI ) run validator nodes for the network, build software for it, and use it ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.3.50 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to Bloomberg video with CEO is broken

Results in a 404 page in the bloomberg website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BCA:9600:C5A4:3020:B905:164B (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

POV and sourcing concerns: general sanctions

Due to persistent POV and sourcing concerns on this article, I am imposing the following community-authorized sanctions in accordance with WP:GS/CRYPTO:

• The article is indefinitely extended confirmed-protected;
• Editors may not revert the removal of content unless the material is fully backed by inline sources (see WP:BURDEN); and
• Editors may not use industry sources (any publications which substantially cover cryptocurrency or blockchain) or primary sources unless an affirmative consensus is reached that a particular source is appropriate for use in accordance with all relevant policies, including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY.

These restrictions are in addition to the 1RR restriction that applies to all cryptocurrency/blockchain-related articles. Please reach out if you have any questions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality, PROMO, Excessive Detail

In working on this article over the last day I have dramatically reduced the size of it while attempting to keep basic information. This is because the article was overly promotional (lacking WP:NPOV) and also seemed to be overly detailed in parts. This was especially true in places that relied on Ripple itself. In this edit I worked to keep major information and importantly reliable sources present. This did mean that I removed all crypto-related sourcing (e.g. from coindesk) given the lack of community consensus around their reliability (or explicit community consensus that they are not reliable). Hopefully from here a more policy compliant article can be built. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely what the article needed - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo in the History section

In the first sentence, the word "debuted" appears twice ("debuted debuted"). I was going to just fix it, but because of extended-confirmed protection, I'm not allowed to make the fix. Wanted to let someone know who can change it. Thanks!

--- DJ (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks - DJ. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)