On 4/22/13, Alex Kotov <
aleksand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:29:13 PM UTC+3, Jorge Timón wrote:
>>
>> Ok, then the central node accepts trusts them all but doesn't make any
>> offer. Each community makes its offers in exchange for the central
>> one. In this case they need to sell their own for the central one and
>> also the other way around. To do that, they need to buy the central
>> currency in advance.
>>
> That is what i tried in test. Central node used just USD.
> Community buying USD and selling own currency, and Central node selling USD
>
> and buying Locals.
> Do you mean offers from Central node are not necessary at all?
Yes. The central node would give the same amount of USD to each
community (or something like that) in advance.
>> But by setting this central node you're also implying that all
>> communities trust each other and cannot choose for how much to each
>> other community.
>>
> Yes, and even local-to local model need community authority to decide home
> much to trust to other community. This is going waste p2p advantages of
> ripple.
This is why I don't like the central node.
> and also members from different communities could not (properly) use direct
>
> trust lines, because they use their local currency.
This may be possible with the custom currencies I've talked you about
before. In any case, users can always simulate trust lines with
offers.
>> I think the central node approach is actually more complicated.
>>
> I think it necessary to ask some new futures to let one node create
> currency, define its rate to nationals and others could just accept this
> and use it.
They plan to implement the custom currencies. But fixed rates are not
necessary and are in fact an edge case that I don't think would be
very useful.
> It looks like way of Ripple.com is too much P2P )), it is of course a
> big possibilities for each node to be a broker, but does anybody need it to
>
> be 24/7?
The point is to enable all features for all users and then let the
users decide what subset they want to use. Again, take into account
that what you want to do is a very particular case and will not be the
norm. Still, you can model your system with what's currently
implemented.
Here's another solution for your system:
1) Everybody uses the same value standard for an hour, say USH.
2) All the participants calculate how many "USH are the hours worth in
their country",
When russians trade an hour, they pay 1.02 HRS instead of 1 RUC
When people want to trade with hours in Ukraine, people pay 0.86 HRS
instead of 1 UAC.
This way everythin becomes simpler. Communities can use trust lines
directly with each other and everybody is talking in the same units.
If I want to buy some Russian lessons through the internet to a
Russian, he can set his price as "1.02 HRS per class hour" instead of
"1 RUC per class hour", and I don't need any conversion.
Isn't this better at all lights?
Sorry, but I still don't understand why arbitrary (and unfair IMO)
minimum wage laws should be relevant at all for voluntary
international trades.
If I want, say, some lessons and people from Argentina and Germany
offer them, I just want to now what each one can offer and their
prices. I don't care about the wages in their respective countries at
all. Why should I care?