I know how you feel. Sucks when people lie about you and perpetuate ridiculous accusations, doesn't it?

I think that's a very fair response. I look forward to what you guys are doing.

Yes, the way to make Bitcoin successful is to block sites that use it in ways you dislike.

Most often, slow confirms are caused by the sender not attaching a mining fee. Pay the tiny fee, and the transactions is very likely to be confirmed in the next block.

I too can vouch for Kraken's owner, Jesse. I'm very excited to see this exchange go live!

Gateways are no more distributed than Bitcoin exchanges. There are numerous Bitcoin exchanges, and there will be numerous Ripple gateways. Bitcoin exchanges and Ripple gateways both suffer the same vulnerability to government shutdown, as they must hold bank accounts with fiat currencies in them. I am not saying that Ripple is worse that Bitcoin in this regard, I'm simply saying it is not better.

And "person to person rippling" still doesn't move fiat around. The fact remains - if you want to sell some asset (BTC, EUR, Gold, etc) for dollars via Ripple, you still have to figure out how to get the asset to the buyer, and the dollars to yourself. Ripple doesn't move those assets.

Ripple only lets people trade claims to assets, not assets themselves (with the exception of XRPs). And I can trade claims to assets without ripple... I could sell you my car for your pile of $10k in cash. We could do this via email. Of course, then the important question is how to we actually make the exchange, because a promise in computer software does not equal delivery or ownership of the asset. Ripple offers the former while claiming to provide the latter.

I'm simply saying it is not superior to the current system of Gox and other exchanges. That's my point. At best, it is a cloudy, less transparent way of achieving the same goal and exposing oneself to the same counter party risks and hindring oneself with the same bank regulations. If Ripple actually transferred dollars, then I'd be singing its praises. But, of course, it can't do that, and I dislike that it is marketed as if it can... it seems to be misleading a whole host of people.

For the same reason that BTC is worth something when anyone can easily clone it. Network effects, user adoption, brand recognition, proven track record, etc.

Again, it doesn't do this. Ripple doesn't let you exchange between fiat and BTC. It lets you exchange between fiat IOU's and BTC. To actually take possession of the fiat, you're back in the normal banking/payments system.

IOU for $1 =/= $1  (the former has non-trivial counterparty risk, the latter is an asset).

This is a very good question, and you're absolutely right that the VC investors are being enticed by something like 100x potential return or higher. They are not investing millions for any other reason.

That said, I see only two possible business models:

1) Give a large amount of XRP to the investors. If system takes off, they make huge returns.

2) At some stage, attempt to license gateways, such that Ripple becomes a proprietary system earning money on its IP. I doubt OpenCoin is so foolish as to think this would work. I do not think this is their plan. This leaves only option 1, above.

Notice something important though... the promise to investors must have been more than "you get X% in OpenCoin equity" because the company MUST ASSUME that it will be closed or shut down once Ripple achieves a significant size (the e-gold problem). In other words, everyone in OpenCoin must know that OpenCoin is temporary, and thus the only promise they could make to the investors is to hand them a bunch of XRP's which would outlast the company.

If the investors really only invested in return for equity in OpenCoin, then they are fools and don't understand the implications of cryptocurrency markets at all.

FTFY

The difference is this:

With Bitcoin, when you hold Bitcoins or transfer Bitcoins, then there is no trust required. You actually hold and control the asset.

With Ripple, when you "hold" or "transfer" other currencies, then you have to trust gateways (and OpenCoin as well for the foreseeable future).

In other words, Ripple is billed as a way to "transfer all currencies" as easily as one transfers Bitcoins. But this is a misnomer, because you're only actually transferring debts/IOU's of those currencies, and must thus rely on and trust various parties, which is hardly different than our current bank/paypal/visa system.

Further, even though you think you only need to trust the gateway in Ripple, you forgot that you still need to get money into the gateway. Ripple can't move assets, remember, so people still need to "load" and "unload" the system with various currencies at the gateways, requiring all the trusted parties that your BitInstant example required.

But it's important to distinguish between trust needed to hold and transfer assets and trust needed for exchange between assets. In the BitInstant example, you're not using Bitcoin so much as acquiring Bitcoin via various parties who already have it. Once you have the Bitcoin, it's your asset and no more trust is required. With Ripple, even if you can "acquire euros" at a gateway, someone needed to trust the same types of parties to get the euros into the gateway's bank account (Ripple didn't do it), and further still, the euro IOU that you acquire will STILL require trusting the gateway in perpetuity.

Usage of the monies in Ripple, then, requires trust, where in Bitcoin it does not. You can say the ability to move IOU's around via Ripple is valuable (likely it is), but it is not the same as moving assets. It is the claim that Ripple moves assets which I have a problem with. Ripple can only move the asset called XRP's, and in this way it provides no innovation over Bitcoin which has been moving BTC's for four years successfully.

First of all, Ripple/OpenCoin is NOT a scam. It is a legitimate business enterprise and it will be determined by the market whether it is a good currency (XRP) and payment system. The team behind it is great, and if Ripple takes off then I'm happy they'll all get rich. Capitalism is healthy. Now, there are plenty of good arguments why Ripple is inferior to Bitcoin, but the scam argument isn't one of them. People need to stop throwing that damn word around every time they dislike something.

Ripple is not a scam, but my contentions with Ripple are the following:

1) It is closed source. Yes it might open in the future, but until then, my contention stands. The point of cryptocurrencies is that you don't have to trust any single person or group. Right now, everyone using Ripple has to trust the team at OpenCoin.

2) It is centralized.  Yes it may become decentralized in the future, but until then, my contention stands. It is not trust of the OpenCoin team which worries me here, it is the fact that they are the single point of failure. They could be shut down tomorrow a la egold. If Bitcoin had been as centralized as OpenCoin when it was getting started, the Government would've arrested and shut down the project long ago.

3) Ripple does not allow users to send "every kind of currency." Ripple is marketed as better than Bitcoin because it can "send any kind of currency." This is not true. It sends IOU's around, which are created out of thin air. The asset - the currency unit itself - is not transferred via Ripple. Sure you can sell a Bitcoin on Ripple for a USD, but then do you have the USD? No, it rests with a gateway somewhere. To actually get it, you're back in the normal banking system just as if you had traded BTC for USD on an exchange. Ripple can only transfer one asset - XRP's - everything else is a debt that must be fulfilled and transferred by someone else. There are numerous liability/risk issues with a payment system that relies on trust, in this case you need to trust "gateways" with the currency units that Ripple claims you own.

4) Issuance of XRP's is left to the whims of men. I do not care that OpenCoin will keep X number of XRP and thus get wealthy if it takes off. That's fine. My problem is that the XRP's which are supposed to be distributed have no planned distribution model. It's basically "we'll give it to our friends" approach. The problem here is that when and where they will be given is unknown, which causes considerable economic supply concerns. We all know how many Bitcoins there are in the wild, we have no idea with Ripple. 100 billion were created, and some number between several million and 99 billion is currently in circulation. To the extent that OpenCoin can issue, at whim, tranches of new XRP's into the market, it is no more attractive to me as a money system than any central bank.

5) The security model of Ripple is untested. This isn't OpenCoin's fault... it just means that Ripple has not been exposed to the wild in the same way that Bitcoin has for four years. Ripple needs to earn credibility with time in the wild. A number of people I've spoken with have grave concerns about the security model of Ripple, but we'll just have to wait and see. There's nothing wrong with experimentation.

In my opinion, Ripple is a pretty clever way to take the allure of the successful cryptocurrency system and leverage it into a proprietary project that will make the creators of the project rich. And that's fine, rich is good. But, I don't see that Ripple has any significant advantage over Bitcoin from a monetary perspective, and that's what will ultimately decide the success of the two projects.

Ripple's competitive advantage rests on the tenuous assertion that it transfers standard currencies, when it reality it doesn't do this. Ripple only really transfers XRP's, and in this way it is no better than Bitcoin, which transfers BTC's... yet Bitcoin is far more proven, widespread, and decentralized.

Ultimately, competition in cryptocurrency land is good. I have great respect for the OpenCoin developers, and Ripple is certainly not a scam, but I remain unconvinced of the system's ultimate merit.

Yes, those massive wins are real.

No, SatoshiDice doesn't send fake transactions to puff up its numbers in any way nor does it run betting bots of any kind.

Posting here to verify the account. SatoshiDICE_PR is SatoshiDice's legitimate representative.

Mem, you are welcome not to support people or businesses you disagree with. That is fine.

But you are not welcome to lie. Your list states that I "passionately defend the use of the N-Word as a derogatory slur."  I do not defend the use of the word whatsoever. A racist is someone who believes in the inferiority of an individual because of his/her race. Mircea explicitly stated in that post that he does not believe this.   Yet, you have not let these facts disrupt your narrative. You are not engaging in this debate from a foundation of honesty, but of flimsy, superficial assertion.

If you don't want to support SD or me that's fine. Boycott whomever you wish. As gentlemen we can disagree on our opinion of Mircea, but please hold yourself at least to a standard of honesty.  Even though you've defamed and insulted me, I will not be going around posting lies about you. If your opinion is legitimate, you needn't post lies about me to convey it.

LOL

It's back up now, thanks all.

Mem, this is really disingenuous. Never did I "passionately defend the use of the N-Word."  My thesis, if you care to understand it, was that Mircea's post was not racist. You're welcome to disagree with this thesis if you like, but the quote above is disingenuous.  My thesis was NOT that it's okay to use the N-Word or that I supported Mircea doing that. I do not think he should be using that word. I also don't think the post is racist. Using a word does not make one racist. One is racist if one believes in inherent inferiority of an individual based on his race. Mircea doesn't believe that, and specifically stated such in the post. You ignore that fact.

I do not understand why you fail to see this distinction, and it feels as if you're simply trying to stir up drama, make enemies, and crusade against people based on very dubious assertions. The quote above from your gambling list is deceptive. It is factually wrong, but I suppose you'll keep it anyway. That was also pretty classy of you to lock your thread after you got the last word in.

Stated in bullet points for you:
- I am not racist. I don't give a damn about peoples' skin color.
- I do not believe Mircea is a racist, although he is certainly an elitist, is very brash, and very offensive to some people.
- I do not believe Mircea's post is racist. Those who find it offensive are getting caught up in the use of one word and failing to understand the meaning of the commentary.
- I do not defend the use of the N-word, ever.

Do you need it any more clearly spelled out or will you perpetuate the witch hunt?

FYI - SD is down temporary for an upgrade. Should be back live within an hour. All bets will processes normally but may be stuck until the system is back so please be patient (no bets will get lost or messed up).

Thanks!

FTFY