Quote from: bitaccumulation on May 18, 2013, 12:26:19 AM

Quote from: TradeFortress on May 18, 2013, 12:17:43 AM

Quote from: bitaccumulation on May 18, 2013, 12:15:10 AM

Just like if someone didn't understand how public/private key encryption works it would be sleazy to ask them for the PRIVATE key of their wallet to deposit money and then use that private key to steal the rest of the BTC from their wallet.

That's true. However, I haven't used it to steal BTC IOUs from other people's wallet, people who have zero affiliation with me (other than also being sent my IOUs) did.

TESTING MEANS TEST IT ON MYSELF / OWN ACCOUNTS. I am not responsible for anything other people do. Oh, and see Deprived response for why Ripple is actually flawed in how liquidity providers work.

You're involved in a scam. If you did the same thing with secret keys (knowing that people didn't understand what they were) and then gave those secret keys away to other people - would that make you any less culpable in the scam? I think not.

Having people trust you for 100 BTC in Ripple is the same thing as asking someone who doesn't know the difference between a private key and public key to give you a private key. In both cases you are playing on someone's ignorance of the system and promoting theft - whether you do the stealing or not.

It's actually NOT the same thing.

If I ask someone to give me their private key and they do, noone else can do anything to harm them unless I give away the key.
If I ask someone to trust me for 100 BTC on ripple and they do then other people can cause them financial loss WITHOUT me doing anything.

The difference is down to a flaw in how ripple is implemented - that it values all IOUs based purely on face-value. So 1 BTC issued by a gateway that will redeem immediately is treated as having the same value as a BTC issued by a penniless bum with a track-record of scamming, failing to meet promises and zero assets (a large chunk of the forum membership falls in this group). Or, as in this case, the same value as a BTC issued by someone trying to prove just how bad that system is - with no promise or intent of ever redeeming it.

Issuing the BTC did no harm - where harm occurred was from the requirement to extend 100 BTC of trust in return for receiving 1 BTC of worthless IOU. But seriously - anyone dumb enough to do that DESERVES to suffer loss as an example to the rest of the community.

If I said I'd give you an IOU for $1 in return for being allowed to use your $100 overdraft facility at your bank would you accept? If not, why would you accept the same offer made on ripple? Because that's basically what the deal was - just most people accepting it didn't have a usable overdraft facility so were immune to harm.