My point is that I'm skeptical of claims that you are creating a bridge to where "we" want to be, if that means a world that does not have trillions of dollars of legacy fiat currency markets that need to be "rippled." By and large the bitcoin community sees no need for a future where a company doing the sorts of things that Ripple does has a central role. That may simple be a lack of vision and the people running Ripple are just smarter than everyone else, or it may be a disagreement as to direction. I suspect the latter.

This was essentially the original (pre crypto) ripple. You created IOUs exclusively with your actual trusted friends and they could get canceled in the course of trade, but not traded. That seemed to never really go anywhere. Then this crypto VC bubble happened and we got where we are.

That analogy fails in so many ways.

Apple's business plan in creating the iphone was not and is not to "create a bridge." Show me a speech by Steve Jobs where he said that the reason to adopt the iPhone was as some sort of bridge.

So Ripple's business plan is to build this bridge and help make itself obsolete. Why do I doubt that?

Yup, big screw up to use the same (or very similar) name for both, if the idea is to communicate the value proposition clearly.

I don't know if this was by design, to try to latch onto the hype associated with appreciating crypto currencies, or just a mistake.

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been covered, but the reported market cap for ripple was wrong.

They could claim to have issued (but not distributed) a googol ripples instead of 100 billion and the market cap would be off the charts.

Market cap only properly refers to shares that have been sold (or given away) by the issuer. Shares held by the issuer don't count.

Coinmarketcap seems to have stopped incorrectly using the 100 billion number in the calculation. I don't know if they are doing the calculation correctly now but it looks more plausible.

"Something of substance" meaning a commitment that binds them to the outcome. Talk is cheap. If they say "it will ship on time and on spec," that's one thing. If they say, "you can get a refund if it doesn't ship on time and on spec," I'm more included to believe it will ship on time and on spec. I don't really want the refund, I just want to know they are willing to put their money where their mouth is on the promised ship date and specs.

Or maybe the name matters.

It is not BS that the buyer is assuming all risks. No refunds, no escrow, no compensation for late shipment, no payment upon shipment, etc.

You say the risks are small, which they may well be, but you aren't willing to take them on, which speaks loudly.

I looked around their system image pretty carefully and I couldn't find anything that was writing to the SD. Yes, its mounted, but it should still be idle and consistent. It is possible I missed something, but I don't think so.

Reducing the power load to a minimum before physically powering it down might be more important.

My recollection from reviewing the code changes is that the emissions should be about 1/4 the speed of bytecoin.

Not much advantage to early mining is relative though. Perhaps you have heard about Satoshi's 1m+ bitcoins?

There are certainly people with the skill, and most of the GUI code can be ripped pretty easily from bitcoin-qt. The question is how to motivate someone to actually do it.

Somebody really like the product:

https://blockchain.info/tx/ae51910a67ee6f2c74a89919a824fec4177e92144ecef71f0ed707284f8b27b3

This is silly. They are obviously building them as fast as they can.

The refund policy to which I refer is only if they don't deliver on spec and on schedule. People would not have the option of a refund just because bitcoin price goes down.

Everything you said about shady and unreliable vendors in the bitcoin mining space is likely true, but that doesn't change the fact that repeatedly making promises without putting anything of substance behind them is cheap talk, and is very different from making a binding and substantial commitment to the customer.

I have 2 million to sell for 0.3 btc

You can try pulling the ethernet cable first. No network = no mining = very low load.

As long as the cheap talk is repeated what's the harm repeating the (accurate) warning as well?

If you want to turn this into a pure marketing/cheerleading thread where only one side is being heard, you can do that. Moderator powers, after all.




 

Long before 5 years the machines will be worthless. Even regular computers are close to worthless after 5 years and they aren't going up the ASIC R&D curve the way bitcoin miners are.

Back that up with a refund or compensation policy. It costs you nothing if you ship on spec and on time.

Talk is cheap.