Not necessarily. If only one node's HTLC success transaction is broadcast, then all nodes in the route can take their payment and make their payment simultaneously even if one or more of them is offline. From my understanding when a user is offline he won't even get elected as possible node. I don't think the fee will be a centralization pressure. It will be a race to the bottom because there will be competition and it will be easy for new nodes to compete. So sure your "bank" charges 9.99 as their fee for one route. Now I create my own node and I get a couple of channels, not as much, but still many. If you route through me, you may still have to go through 4 other nodes. I can then charge 5 as the so the total route fee is 9 (5 + 4*1). Now that "bank" has to lower his fee to remain competetive, and so on and so forth.
Hmm I find this a weird answer. Of course the guy with just one node can always charge less because he doesn't have to divide the profit. |
|
|
|
Point is, the volumes are on par with the market cap. Bitcoin has 1/3 of the market cap of crypto, and *also 1/3 of the volume*. These are two indicators giving its true significance. XRP has half the bitcoin market cap, and also about half its volume. So all this makes sense.
Exactly. That debunks those Ripple naysayer conspiracy theories indeed. |
|
|
|
Ok, show me how many are in actual circulation. I'd like to see an address distribution list like the one for BTC.
Ripple.com/xrp/market-performance shows
Ripple currently owns 6.37 Billion XRP
Ripple escrow by 2017 end is 55 Billion xrp.
Total XRP in the wild is 38.622 billion xrp
The 38.622 billion xrp is in question. Try following the endless circles in ledgers is nearly impossible to deduce ownership or where the majority of those xrp currently reside.
We know that 20bn xrp were gifted to the original creators. Where are those accounts today? And the excess 18bn xrp, who are those top holders and addresses?
Perhaps there is a list of top 200 xrp addresses.
For that matter, which address is currently holding the 55bn xrp?
There's a lot of ummmm. no idea's but it's great going on here.
You're asking about the currency that's not in circulation. Again, like I already said, that is NOT counted as market cap. ONLY the Ripple that's really in circulation is counted. then you deserve ripple.
Thanks, I feel like I deserve it too. Never made so much money in so little time |
|
|
|
|
I've been reading some more and there are even more important arguments against decentralization:
1) Users need to be online all the time! If somebody is offline he can NOT process a transaction for you, this means that that person breaks the route, which is a huge problem. Banks on the other hand will of course be online 24/7
2) Monetary incentives for centralization! Everybody who helps processing your transaction gets a small fee. So if there's a route with 10 people in it, then a bank with a direct route can charge 9.99x the fee for one hub and still be cheaper! So the bigger a hub becomes, the smaller the routes will become and the more they can charge. This of course works as a huge snowball for size and is a huge incentive to become as big as possible.
|
|
|
|
If you are dumb enough to believe the market cap.. then you deserve ripple. LOL.. I can make a coin with a total of 100 Billion. Give out 1 to myself and sell it for a dollar. Wooohooo, my coin now has a 100 Million dollar market cap. Remember when Banx.io had a coin up there with some crazy numbers.
Nonsense, the Ripple (or any other) marketcap is calculated on basis of the circulating supply (38B) and not on the total coins (99B). In the latter case Ripple would have surpassed BTC already. But now we have to wait 2 weeks for that to happen  Everything is exploding, coins like NEM and TRON up more than 70% in 24 hours while BTC ... is just doing pretty much nothing. That's an extremely weak sign. The game now is: which coin is going to replace BTC, that's why everything but BTC is exploding. BTC itself is done. |
|
|
|
|
Ripple just crossed the 50% market cap of BTC, that's a new high ! And a new low for BTC dominance itself, down to 34% ... I think it's game over for BTC soon. Too slow, too expensive and Lightning Network is a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, great explanation! I probably should not have used the term lending because the risks inherent in traditional lending clearly don't apply here. However the point remains that everybody in the route needs to have the money freely available that you want to pay. Personally I feel that this is why LN will never really work decentralized as some envision it. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
ripple still far away from bitcoin and even ripple is exploding, bitcoin still be the adjustment for ripple and another coin as we know bitcoin is in the top position. although ripple increase in the price, it doesn't give too much impact for bitcoin and even if the bank wants to adopt ripple in their system, I don't think it will make bitcoin domination is over because people still know bitcoin as the top of cryptocurrency and they have a big chance to make money with bitcoin than ripple.
It's not that far away, as we speak Ripple just broke $100 billion so BTC is only 2.5x higher at this moment, if Ripple keeps ripping in 1-2 weeks Ripple will be nr 1. Who will care about Bitcoin then, if it's not even nr 1 coin anymore and failed as a payment system ? |
|
|
|
Actually he doesn't. B pays C at the exact same time that A pays B. So there is no lending as B is never short of his money. As soon as the hash preimage for an HTLC is known to the world, all parties in a route are instantly paid because the HTLCs can be then settled at the same time.
Actually I don't think this is correct. In A -> B -> C then C first finalizes payment from B by sending the pre-image to B. Then B does the same with A, exactly like explained here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts How is this different from a lending situation ? You ask your friend to pay for the pizza and after he paid for the pizza, you pay him. |
|
|
|
If I have two BTC total split across 4 channels and I want to buy something for 2 BTC, I can send 0.5 via Channel 1 to merchant A, 0.5 BTC via Channel 2 to Merchant A, and so on. Merchant A will get 2 BTC from either one channel or from multiple channels, Either way, he gets paid 2 BTC and I spent 2 BTC and the transactions are guaranteed.
BTW does BTC even supply for such a mechanism that it can cancel all payments if one fails ? Otherwise nobody would use it (who wants to pay 80% of a product and thus not receive the product) and your example isn't even valid |
|
|
|
The user means that it's not a true cryptocurrency because it's a centralized coin. The whole idea of cryptocurrency from my understanding and why bitcoin was started is 1) To be anonymous, 2) to be a fully electronic currency, 3) to be decentralized. Decentralization is important because no single entity can control the coin or the holders. Aka, we're free from banks and governments just regulating how much is in the market, how it's being moved, etc. Ripple is different. It was created by a person and that person dictates how much ripple is available. One user in this thread explained it well.
That's your idea of crypto currency, not necessarily THE idea. Besides, bitcoin is now working on Lightning Network and that's doomed to become centralized too, like I explained in this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2679337.0 or here: https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 Same goes of course for ETH with its "raiden network". So in the end, bitcoin + lightning network most probably would be a centralized bank system too, pretty much like Ripple. But with the difference that banks actually are interested in Ripple and are actively working right now with the company. |
|
|
|
|
I don't really see a future for bitcoin. Its block chain technology doesn't scale well and Lightning Network, I just don't see it working other than in a really centralized environment, but banks seem to prefer Ripple so I doubt they'd adopt bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Ripple is a joke. Good business, but as cryptocurrency it's a joke.
Care to elaborate ? The big banks seem to think otherwise they have huge names already lined up like RBC, Santander, UBS, American Express, Credit Agricole, CIBC, BBVA etc etc etc. So "a joke" is pretty inaccurate. This is something quite serious. |
|
|
|
That's completely untrue. You are then dependent on the wealth of that "bank", how many channels it has open, and how much it owns on each channel. You are not done, and there is no guarantee that said "bank" will be any better than your 4 friends. Suppose that bank is just like friends, but with more channels that lead to dead ends and not the airline you want to pay. Now you're stuck. It's exactly the same as with your friends, and not any better nor any worse.
Well I rather depend on the wealth of a bank than on the wealth of my friends (and their friend's friends wealth) But yeah even then you're indeed not guaranteed of a good route and it's not even a guarantee I can pay my ticket. But isn't that an awful system then ? Of course I can always choose to bypass LN and just cough up the $55 (or way higher) transaction fee ... But still it just seems so far from perfect that I wonder if this thing is going to make it. |
|
|
|
With a well connected graph, that's not a problem. And based on current use on testnet, it looks like it is going to be a fairly well connected graph.
But let's say I want to pay an airline ticket for $1200. I have 4 channels with 4 friends. Two of them have $350 freely available each and two of them have $250 available each. However one of them has a route with friends who only have $200 available. Now I can't pay for the ticket even though I'm a frikkin' (bitcoin) millionaire myself  It would make SO much more sense for me to just open 1 channel with a big bank, but some cash in it and I'm done! I can now at least determine myself how much I can pay and I'm not dependent on the wealth of my friends (or their friend's friends). It just seems so logical that it's going to evolve into that. So not this 'ideal decentralized' mesh some people dream about but a centralized system. It just seems inevitable to me |
|
|
|
Actually he doesn't. B pays C at the exact same time that A pays B. So there is no lending as B is never short of his money. As soon as the hash preimage for an HTLC is known to the world, all parties in a route are instantly paid because the HTLCs can be then settled at the same time. Ok the traditional definition of lending wouldn't apply here, agreed. However that doesn't change the problem that everybody in the route needs to have the amount of money that you are sending in his account, freely available. If I have two BTC total split across 4 channels and I want to buy something for 2 BTC, I can send 0.5 via Channel 1 to merchant A, 0.5 BTC via Channel 2 to Merchant A, and so on. Merchant A will get 2 BTC from either one channel or from multiple channels, Either way, he gets paid 2 BTC and I spent 2 BTC and the transactions are guaranteed.
That is if all your channels are connected to the Merchant AND everybody in those channels has at least the amount freely available that you want to send. |
|
|
|
everybody lends his money to the next guy in the chain, up the guy at the end of the chain who wants to pay for something.
There is no lending of money. It is not an IOU system, there is no lending. All money exists and is accounted for on the blockchain. If person A wants to buy something, person B is in the middle and Person C is the receiver, then B first pays C, so he actually 'lends' money to A It isn't a chain, it is a route. The graph of nodes is not the extremely degenerate case of a linked list or hub and spoke model. Sure the maximum amount is limited by the smallest amount in the route, but if that amount is too small, another route can be chosen that allows for more money to be transferred if necessary. Furthermore, each route is for one use only, they aren't permanent and do not always have to be used for payments to the same person.
But the key here is that average Joe doesn't have a lot of money to finance payments for others (average Joe takes credit, he doesnt give it). So that's a huge problem in the decentralized mesh. I honestly don't see how this could work without any big centralized nodes like banks. In fact I think that's just the natural way it will evolve: people will open payment channels with big parties (=banks) to ensure that they can actually pay people. You don't want to divide your money over 20 channels and only have 5% of your money per channel. So it seems only natural that banks would become central in LN, it's both more efficient and effective. Just trying to grasp this whole concept. The whole idea of bitcoin was decentralization and now with LN it seems it's going the other way again. |
|
|
|
|
I really don't see how LN is supposed to work decentralized. In this scenario there would be a huge chain of people where everybody lends his money to the next guy in the chain, up the guy at the end of the chain who wants to pay for something. The maximum payment amount in this scenario is determined by the guy who has the least amount of money freely available in that chain. This effectively would mean that it can only work decentralized for very small payments. Even payments bigger than a few dollar could already be problematic.
Whereas in a centralized scenario, it could perfectly work, but it would effectively turn into a regular banking relationship as people have now, just with a different name (account at your bank vs payment channel with your bank). Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.
Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong? No, you are a waste of time as you try to compare bank coin to bitcoin. A) you are a troll Or B) you are missing some serious IQ Or C) you try just make some advertisements for your bank coin and dont bother what arguments you use. As I say before always same bullshits from some newly created accounts. Thanks for all the options, but if you don't have anything actually relevant to add to the discussion and can only post insults, then you might want to move to some other thread. There is nothing wrong with discussing bitcoin anf bitcoin cash as both camp have some good arguments. You dare to mention and to compare it to centralized bank ripple, its hilarious But its fine, let see wat this trash coin is; There will be 100 billion xrp and 60 billion is in de hand of ripple / bank candidates, If this isn't a deal breaker for you, you should stay at your local bank and font bother cryptocurrency. Ay any time rippel can cancel and seize my money, sounds familiar? B A N K I dare anyone to seize my bitcoin! YOU CANT. LOL. ITS MINE. For love of brain, they work with the banks and you don't like it when people call it a bank coin any time that its you against the bank you are the one that will get screwed. Or do you truly think banks will invest in something that benefit you and harm the bank. Lol its hilarious Discusion about bitcoin and bitcoin cash is what this topic is about, about your ripple bank coin just use goggle to find more what a scam this ripple is. Dont waste people's time and hijack this topic to selll bullshit to newbies about your ripple bank coin My whole point, which you somehow still fail to see, is that bitcoin + lightning network can only succeed as a banking solution too. For the reasons I laid out before, LN can not work as a decentralized solution. That's why you need to compare it to a banking solution like Ripple, not to bitcoin cash, that's really a whole different world, which actually can and does function decentralized. Either way, I'm not interested in your opinion about Ripple. I'm interested in your vision of how LN could even work decentralized because it seems you still seem to think that. Then again, this might not be the right thread, I'm going to open one especially for this subject. *EDIT* done: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2679337.new#newSo this topic can be used for comparison between BCH and BTC, although still this is a very important aspect in that discussion too. |
|
|
|
And why is al this bullshit comments always from new accounts? Ripple? Seriously? I think that your right about smoking weed, you should stop smoking it.
Care to elaborate? Or prove me wrong? No, you are a waste of time as you try to compare bank coin to bitcoin. A) you are a troll Or B) you are missing some serious IQ Or C) you try just make some advertisements for your bank coin and dont bother what arguments you use. As I say before always same bullshits from some newly created accounts. Thanks for all the options, but if you don't have anything actually relevant to add to the discussion and can only post insults, then you might want to move to some other thread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
