Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple  (Read 1028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline testz

[FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 14, 2015, 07:01:11 PM »

Finita la comedia (anonymity)?

https://xrptalk.org/topic/6121-what-is-with-the-identification-lately
Quote
Later this year, Ripple Labs will enhance identity requirements for Ripple Trade wallets by establishing additional account creation and verification procedures in support of a compliant Ripple network. This will include the collection of additional identifiable information. An ecosystem that supports regulatory compliance builds confidence and encourages new participants to use Ripple and contribute volume to the network.
 
To learn more about how Ripple Labs is developing an identity solution for Ripple Trade and the overall ecosystem, read our previous communication. We will be in touch with more information soon.
 
Thank you for using Ripple Trade, and please don’t hesitate to email [email protected] with any questions or concerns.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 07:41:09 PM by testz »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12058
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2015, 07:19:06 PM »
blablabla .. we want to do .. blabla .. soon to be .. blabla

where are the hard facts? compliant to what?

Seems BitShares is on the right track .. and guess what .. It took our devs a couple of months to figure out that track while ripple needs .. wait .. how many months are they online now?


//edit: I need stop making useless posts that late in the evening :)
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline hadrian

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2015, 07:21:03 PM »
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.

I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline testz

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2015, 07:40:59 PM »
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.

I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?

And they want to kill anonymity, so good luck to them  :)

Offline davidpbrown

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2015, 07:57:51 PM »
Just to note that Ripple is a different class to BitShares. KYC; AML; etc, are appropriate for them, they are more like traditional money transport than digital currency.

BitShares pegged assets as digital tokens which have a value by consensus are very different and there is no need for Government to intervene or regulate such digital tokens in the way they need to for Ripple. Also, it is not for the Government to suggest the value of a digital token and the possession of items of value is a private concern.

Perhaps worth noting beyond both, Government can be useful setting up consumer protection for another class where digital tokens are truely linked to real world assets - confirming the bridge between the internet and the real world but I haven't seen BitShares looking at that class of asset.

What will be more directly relevant is the BoE resolving whether it wants and is even able to issue it's own digital currency. I think pegged assets are a better and safer option, than a fixed digital token that is formerly issued. If they do decide instead to just let the market find its way, then BitShares will be well placed to blow its own trumpet then and point out how well developed its capability to provide bitGBP is already. Question then is can we make issuing bitGBP practical in the quantity that might be wanted? Creation of bitAssets is a little beyond my understanding.. I don't know if the option to short them into existence is open ended or needs to come into being in parallel with the market buy/sell... but that's off topic too.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fuzzy

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2015, 08:40:22 PM »
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.

I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?

And they want to kill anonymity, so good luck to them :)

http://bitcoinscientist.com/ripple-labs-names-former-obama-advisor-board-directors/ 
One has to wonder about this^ in the context of the bolded portion above...
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline bitsapphire

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 PM »
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.

We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.

If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.

That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
Test Moonstone Wallet here https://app.moonstone.io/register

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2015, 09:05:18 PM »
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.

Does Ripple have a decentralized exchange?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 09:14:41 PM by bitsapphire »
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline bitsapphire

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2015, 09:15:18 PM »
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.

Does Ripple have a decentralized exchange?

Yes, that's pretty much the point of ripple. Though no bitAssets. They also have synthetic combined order books and the nodes do the cross-order boo routing. That's probably their biggest innovation so far.

I hope the Bitshares will be able to deliver that too in the not so distant future, could bring in a damn lot of fees for Bitshares holders as the less efficient the market, the larger the spreads, and the more Bitshares could be burned.
Test Moonstone Wallet here https://app.moonstone.io/register

Offline fuzzy

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2015, 09:15:48 PM »
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.

We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.

If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.

That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.

Isn't there a way to ensure anonymity AND unique identifiability?   

I'd imagine it would utilize a hash of information as opposed to the real information. 
Though I understand the necessity of whitelisting for mainstream adoption, most people tend to forget that by simply pushing forward with whitelisting, we are indirectly creating a "blacklist" as well. 

This means that it will be very difficult over time for users to remain anonymous on the web because if they do not "take the mark" they will not be able to transact in the new paradigm. 

Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror).  So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower. 

I sometimes (and perhaps naively) hold out hope that BitShares has the potential to help people see that privacy and anonymity are actually keystones to liberty and freedom, and that there are solutions that align far better with voluntarism and non-violence.  I hope I'm not wrong :/
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline davidpbrown

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2015, 09:22:51 PM »
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.

Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline bitsapphire

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2015, 09:53:50 PM »
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.

Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??

Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.

This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.

However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.
Test Moonstone Wallet here https://app.moonstone.io/register

Offline fuzzy

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2015, 10:00:54 PM »
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.

Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??

Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.

This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.

However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.

Rather than have mafia-style contract enforcement (I'd argue that most Governments of today use a thinly veiled version of this too), can't companies and users have trust levels that are logged in the blockchain along with a unique identifier (that is not connected with real world identity)?

Then there would naturally be a market for trust.  So people who are well known and well trusted would receive incentives in the form of discounts (for instance in the case of someone buying from a Amazon, for instance) on purchases because the company itself recognizes that this account has always paid appropriately for the services rendered. 

In this way we bring it to more of a voluntaristic model where trust is not needed, but rewarded nonetheless.
BROWNIE==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits Welcome to  the Sharing Economy w/ BeyondBitcoin.org Partners--ShareBits.io & OpenLedger.info
TIP FORMAT: #sharebits "ForumHandleInQuotes" Quanity Token_Name

Offline Pheonike

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2015, 10:12:13 PM »

It comes to the word 'legal'.

Legal = with permission from authority.

Offline bitsapphire

Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2015, 10:16:37 PM »
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.

Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??

Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.

This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.

However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.

Rather than have mafia-style contract enforcement (I'd argue that most Governments of today use a thinly veiled version of this too), can't companies and users have trust levels that are logged in the blockchain along with a unique identifier (that is not connected with real world identity)?

Then there would naturally be a market for trust.  So people who are well known and well trusted would receive incentives in the form of discounts (for instance in the case of someone buying from a Amazon, for instance) on purchases because the company itself recognizes that this account has always paid appropriately for the services rendered. 

In this way we bring it to more of a voluntaristic model where trust is not needed, but rewarded nonetheless.

That is possible, as it would effectively lower the information asymmetry among contractors. The questions remains how do you create those trust scores.

In Pactum we are solving that through prediction markets, but not for people but rather for state machines (could be other blockchains, servers, companies, governments, etc). Creating strong enough trust scores for individuals might be too granular and in my opinion not practical. The counterparty risk of individuals is simply always much greater than that of a large, and heterogeneous pool of people. That's why the bigger the insurance pool, the lower your insurance contribution (at least in theory).
Test Moonstone Wallet here https://app.moonstone.io/register

 

Google+