4 ms·

I've been convinced by Mazières and the Stellar team As someone who's been in the cryptocurrency space for a long time I can guarantee you got swindled. Count

I've been convinced by Mazières and the Stellar team As someone who's been in the cryptocurrency space for a long time I can guarantee you got swindled. Countless investors I have seen move to centralized "blockchains" due to buzzword powerpoint presentations and floating_nodes.jpg bootstrap landing pages. This is no different than what current financial institutions do other than a new UI.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ordinaryradical 9y ago
I don’t understand this comment. It doesn’t seem to address any of the key technical points behind the Stellar project as it is actively used today, but instead tries to imply that the foundation is some group of fly-by-night scammers that have won over keybase by nothing more than a twinkle in their eye. My impression was that Lumens seemed to be solving one of the legitimate problems of the world—the inefficiency of the SWIFT system for cross-border transactions—and appears to have a viable model for doing so. I don’t see how whether or not it’s centralized makes it a swindle?
- diakritikal 9y ago
  It's possible more than one system could replace SWIFT, but why would it be Stellar/Lumens who are still in the gate with their fork when Ripple/XRP seem to be already round the first bend with seemingly very large momentum in terms of interest, trials and actual production use by financial institutions?
  - ordinaryradical 9y ago
    Yes, but perhaps your framework for approaching this is a little too old school? When SWIFT was devised, the idea of having a singular system for resolving these transactions not only made sense but was (probably?) technically necessary. I think given where we are today, multiple competing protocols, each with their own advantages, may be viable. Lastly, for finance, consumer choice is valuable: I like being able to Venmo my friends, autodeposit my landlord, slow mail my bills, and Apple Pay my retail purchases. I don’t send money overseas but I could imagine a similar bifurcation of solutions in this space, all with their own advantages.
  - mazieres 9y ago
    How is Stellar still "in the gate," more than two years after deploying their decentralized Byzantine agreement algorithm? Ripple has only just now, in 2018, published their decentralized consensus algorithm (Cobalt), which as far as I know is not even in production use yet, and doesn't provide optimal safety. (In settings where Cobalt is guaranteed Safe, SCP would be too, but not vice versa.) Their production network still uses a protocol that, by Ripple's own analysis (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07242 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07242), fails to guarantee safety without >90% agreement on the UNL.
- staplers 9y ago
  the foundation is some group of fly-by-night scammers Never said that. There are plenty of institutionalized and heavily trusted ventures on wall street that rake in billions and buy their way to the top. This was my implication. I have known 'Stellar' since its beginnings as Ripple. I have no expectations of changing your mind or obligation to convince you otherwise. Just thought I'd share my viewpoint.
talawahdotnet 9y ago
Are you saying this after having read up on Stellar[1] in particular or is anything other than "full" decentralization a deal breaker for you? I think Stellar's model if Internet-style (as in the backbone network infrastructure) organic, federated trust relationships is the most practical and viable approach to decentralization that I have seen. Organizations decide who to trust based on their relationships with them and individuals decide which organizations to trust for the same reason. That is how trust works in the real world, and for good reason. The problem is that the costs of operating at a global level in the current financial system are very high, which leads to centralized control. Stellar will potentially allow many different types of new, small and innovative organizations to participate in the same network as larger more traditional institutions, with no restrictions for joining the network. Of course those small organization still have to compete for customers in the real world and the playing field is never fully level, but certainly opens up the game. I personally just don't see the Utopian, fully-decentralized, f*ck-the-system future that a lot of crytpo-enthusiasts envision. It just doesn't mesh with the reality of how non-technical users operate in the real world. For example, right now the vast majority of US users purchase Bitcoin through Coinbase, because that is who they deem trustworthy. What I do see with Stellar is the possibility for greater innovation and greater individual access to the global payments network. [1] https://medium.com/a-stellar-journey/on-worldwide-consensus-359e9eb3e949 https://medium.com/a-stellar-journey/on-worldwide-consensus-...
- staplers 9y ago
  I have known 'Stellar' since its beginnings as Ripple. I have no expectations of changing your mind or obligation to convince you otherwise. Just thought I'd share my viewpoint.
saintbellarmine 9y ago
While I generally agree, there is a difference between what bankers are doing atm with their ledgers and SOME projects in the private permissioned ledgers space. The difference is that they are not Byzantine fault tolerant, and distributed. If even just between each other, so there isn't the sort of robustness that you would have otherwise. It reduces a lot of overhead they have atm, with their ACH system. Which works, but it is not perfect. An analogy I can be able to give, is banking is double entry book keeping. DLT's are triple entry book keeping, there is simply many things that their current ledger entries can't do. DLT allows their money to become commodity money, there is also a bunch of contracts that can be added on top of that. So main thing is banks could be able to potentially offer many more services than just verifying payments, at a much lower cost reducing the amount of employees they need. Make more offices or w/e else bankers do lol.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ordinaryradical 9y ago

I don’t understand this comment. It doesn’t seem to address any of the key technical points behind the Stellar project as it is actively used today, but instead tries to imply that the foundation is some group of fly-by-night scammers that have won over keybase by nothing more than a twinkle in their eye. My impression was that Lumens seemed to be solving one of the legitimate problems of the world—the inefficiency of the SWIFT system for cross-border transactions—and appears to have a viable model for doing so. I don’t see how whether or not it’s centralized makes it a swindle?

diakritikal 9y ago
It's possible more than one system could replace SWIFT, but why would it be Stellar/Lumens who are still in the gate with their fork when Ripple/XRP seem to be already round the first bend with seemingly very large momentum in terms of interest, trials and actual production use by financial institutions?
- ordinaryradical 9y ago
  Yes, but perhaps your framework for approaching this is a little too old school? When SWIFT was devised, the idea of having a singular system for resolving these transactions not only made sense but was (probably?) technically necessary. I think given where we are today, multiple competing protocols, each with their own advantages, may be viable. Lastly, for finance, consumer choice is valuable: I like being able to Venmo my friends, autodeposit my landlord, slow mail my bills, and Apple Pay my retail purchases. I don’t send money overseas but I could imagine a similar bifurcation of solutions in this space, all with their own advantages.
- mazieres 9y ago
  How is Stellar still "in the gate," more than two years after deploying their decentralized Byzantine agreement algorithm? Ripple has only just now, in 2018, published their decentralized consensus algorithm (Cobalt), which as far as I know is not even in production use yet, and doesn't provide optimal safety. (In settings where Cobalt is guaranteed Safe, SCP would be too, but not vice versa.) Their production network still uses a protocol that, by Ripple's own analysis (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07242 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07242), fails to guarantee safety without >90% agreement on the UNL.
staplers 9y ago
the foundation is some group of fly-by-night scammers Never said that. There are plenty of institutionalized and heavily trusted ventures on wall street that rake in billions and buy their way to the top. This was my implication. I have known 'Stellar' since its beginnings as Ripple. I have no expectations of changing your mind or obligation to convince you otherwise. Just thought I'd share my viewpoint.

talawahdotnet 9y ago

Are you saying this after having read up on Stellar[1] in particular or is anything other than "full" decentralization a deal breaker for you? I think Stellar's model if Internet-style (as in the backbone network infrastructure) organic, federated trust relationships is the most practical and viable approach to decentralization that I have seen. Organizations decide who to trust based on their relationships with them and individuals decide which organizations to trust for the same reason. That is how trust works in the real world, and for good reason. The problem is that the costs of operating at a global level in the current financial system are very high, which leads to centralized control. Stellar will potentially allow many different types of new, small and innovative organizations to participate in the same network as larger more traditional institutions, with no restrictions for joining the network. Of course those small organization still have to compete for customers in the real world and the playing field is never fully level, but certainly opens up the game. I personally just don't see the Utopian, fully-decentralized, f*ck-the-system future that a lot of crytpo-enthusiasts envision. It just doesn't mesh with the reality of how non-technical users operate in the real world. For example, right now the vast majority of US users purchase Bitcoin through Coinbase, because that is who they deem trustworthy. What I do see with Stellar is the possibility for greater innovation and greater individual access to the global payments network. [1] https://medium.com/a-stellar-journey/on-worldwide-consensus-359e9eb3e949 https://medium.com/a-stellar-journey/on-worldwide-consensus-...

staplers 9y ago
I have known 'Stellar' since its beginnings as Ripple. I have no expectations of changing your mind or obligation to convince you otherwise. Just thought I'd share my viewpoint.

saintbellarmine 9y ago

While I generally agree, there is a difference between what bankers are doing atm with their ledgers and SOME projects in the private permissioned ledgers space. The difference is that they are not Byzantine fault tolerant, and distributed. If even just between each other, so there isn't the sort of robustness that you would have otherwise. It reduces a lot of overhead they have atm, with their ACH system. Which works, but it is not perfect. An analogy I can be able to give, is banking is double entry book keeping. DLT's are triple entry book keeping, there is simply many things that their current ledger entries can't do. DLT allows their money to become commodity money, there is also a bunch of contracts that can be added on top of that. So main thing is banks could be able to potentially offer many more services than just verifying payments, at a much lower cost reducing the amount of employees they need. Make more offices or w/e else bankers do lol.