Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by scottmp10 4333 days ago
This is a Bitcoin-like, distributed, secure payment system WITH a federated protocol for gateways/exchanges. A federated exchange network allows anyone to participate, similar to email servers. But since trust is so much more important in this case, I think that network effects will result in a relatively small set of gateways that anyone will actually interact with.
1 comments
oafitupa 4333 days ago
No this is not Bitcoin-like. It's premined and requires trust. Besides, it's just a fork of Ripple, which has already failed after being dumped by its creator.

http://i.imgur.com/DvyNzY3.jpg

Oh but it has integration with Facebook, so I guess that changes everything! /s

link
murbard2 4333 days ago
Bitcoin also requires trust, specifically the trust that miners will not collude to double spend.

There is also nothing fundamental about the idea of issuing coins as a reward for mining. It's just one possibility among many, there's nothing intrinsically "fair" about it.

link
leshow 4333 days ago
In Bitcoin, you trust the way the network as defined by the code has been set up, not the miners specifically.

In this situation you have the code to audit but you also have to trust the Stellar Foundation... I have to trust they are telling me the truth about how they are distributing the currency, that they won't sell their shares early, that these 3 people heading the foundation are going to act in my interests, etc.

What if the Stellar Foundation dissolves in a month? What happens to the currency?

link
murbard2 4332 days ago
>In Bitcoin, you trust the way the network as defined by the code has been set up, not the miners specifically.

Wrong, you trust the miners not to collude and attack the network.

I know you've heard the claim over and over that Bitoin is trustless, but that doesn't make it true.

link
erikpukinskis 4333 days ago
No, you don't have to trust the miners because there are no known collusive schemes that would make more money for that volume of miners than playing by the rules would.

Maybe you think that some scheme will be discovered, but that's pretty speculative at this point. It's been many years and not a whiff of one.

link
murbard2 4332 days ago
>No, you don't have to trust the miners because there are no known collusive schemes that would make more money for that volume of miners than playing by the rules would.

Yes there is, coordinated conditional double spending on gambling websites.

There are also non pecuniary reasons to attack the network, such as vandalism (miners could be pressured into colluding by a government for instance)

link
erikpukinskis 4321 days ago
What is coordinated conditional double spending?
link