You're pretending like CureCoin is anything but a half-baked and poorly-thought-through idea that borders on scam territory. I don't think the OP has any idea about your questions. None of the idea, as written in the first post, makes any sense.
I just thought I'd test if OP simply had poor English skills. |
|
|
|
mmeijeri, i thought you said they were taking money out of their own pocket to fund development?
They have VC backing. But selling XRP and spending it counts as taking it out of their own pocket. They created the pocket out of thin air. |
|
|
|
It is true there is a maximum cap of 100 billion XPRs, not unlimited, but I somehow feel XRPs may just be used to pay transaction costs, and be avoided as store of value.
Paying transaction fees in XRP will be forked away. They will be worthless. |
|
|
|
Because OpenCoin is creating a large, complex piece of software which will be released as open source. So in exchange for the large "premine" they are creating significant value.
The additional value that SolidCoins could offer was very little in comparison to that.
Satoshi somehow managed to create a large, complex piece of software which he released as open source immediately without a pre-mine. How did he do it? It sounds like he needs to take his investing advice from OpenCoin from now on. Their pre-mine is 100%. Will they be putting in 100% of the effort into making Ripple a successfully currency? So what are they? Why users are not allowed to create their own IOUs?
They are a 100% pre-mined currency that you are forced to use and hold if you want to participate in the Ripple network. The reason is to make OpenCoin rich. That's all. |
|
|
|
Here's another Ripple mystery. On Ripple's site, I have only found one page where the distribution of XRP is fully explained. The Ripple founders created the initial Ripple ledger with 100 billion XRP. The founders gifted a for profit company called Opencoin 80 billion XRP. Opencoin intends to give away over 50 billion XRP. The remainder will be used to fund Opencoin operations, which include contributing code to the open source network and promoting the network. If XRP's distribution is a good feature or even not a bad feature, why do they try so hard to hide it away on a page that very few people will read? Why not put it directly in the FAQ or Ripple introduction page? Why not put it on the front page of their site? "Professional: Since OpenCoin owns most of the XRPs in existence, we'll always be able pay for the development and improvement of the Ripple protocol." You can't hide things from people forever. There was also the whole debacle where the Ripple developers originally tried their hardest to convince everyone that XRP was not a currency. Anyone who thinks that they're not engaged in a blatant campaign of disinformation is delusional. |
|
|
|
It'd be a better system without having to beg for a centralized pump-and-dump currency to use it, don't you think? I prefer OpenCoin's current model because this way they can make money. Anyway, I'm unfortunately going to have to put you on ignore because you do not add any signal whatsoever to the noise. "I prefer SolidCoin's model because this way RealSolid can make money." That is how Ripple supporters sound. Think about it. For years in the cryptocurrency community, "pre-mine" was a dirty word. Now a 100% pre-mined currency comes along and we have dozens of people advocating for us to accept it and even calling a "Bitcoin killer"? If that's not shilling then I don't know what is. People are getting paid off and misterbigg is apparently one of them. If I make a 100% pre-mined anticoin, will people support me if I promise to give it all away and use it to help develop the network? |
|
|
|
Yes. Think about what happens when you buy Bitcoins. You deposit money into MtGox, and you receive "MtGox USD IOUs". Which really means that they have your money and all you have is an entry in a database. Now you buy some Bitcoins on MtGox. You aren't receiving Bitcoins, you are getting "MtGox BTC IOUs". Still, all you have is an entry in a database. Only when you withdraw your Bitcoins, or wire the U.S. dollars, from MtGox do you get back something which is not an IOU (although some might call the USD an IOU).
Ripple works exactly the same way. The difference is that when you deposit your money into a gateway, you have control over those IOUs. You can send them to other people, hold them, or exchange them for other IOUs (or XRPs).
With Ripple you first extend trust to a gateway (this is like depositing money at MtGox). Then, you can withdraw those funds as IOUs into the Ripple network and use them to perform transactions in a decentralized way. It's a great system.
It'd be a better system without having to beg for a centralized pump-and-dump currency to use it, don't you think? |
|
|
|
or result in failure.
It will certainly hurt their early adopter shills who think that they're going to get rich off of the small fraction of XRP that they've begged for. |
|
|
|
XRP can still be successful and good even though it's not as noble as Bitcoin.
I sympathise with your conciliatory sentiments, but what is it about Bitcoin that strikes you as nobler than Ripple? The lack of a 100% pre-mine for starters? I don't see why RealSolid is forever marked a scammer for pre-mining a million SolidCoins while OpenCoin gets away with pre-mining 100 billion XRP. Somebody explain this to me. |
|
|
|
XRP can still be successful and good even though it's not as noble as Bitcoin. Do you not use Mastercard and VISA because it isn't pure like bitcoin? Probably not. But you make some good points and they are courting the Bitcoin community so I see why you started the thread.
Mastercard and VISA already exist. People don't need another generic payment processor (much less one you have to buy into to use), and that's all Ripple is. Bitcoin only managed to carve out its stake in the financial world because of its purity. Ripple will fail for that same reason. |
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that they want to pump up the value of their holdings as much as possible for the eventual dump? This is a perfect example of what I was speaking about earlier regarding primates. "anti-scam" like everyone, knows full well that you can use Ripple to send, receive, and redeem IOUs without having to invest in the XRP currency and yet he ignores that and continues to spout baseless claims. Technically you do have to invest in the XRP currency (to pay transaction fees and the reserve requirement) to send, receive, and redeem IOUs. The only one spouting baseless claims here is you. A dump of XRP is inevitable. Ripple, as a system built on centralization and control instead of freedom, is doomed to fail. OpenCoin has investors to pay back. They will have no choice but to dump as many XRP as possible to try to pay them off. Anything before then is just hype. I don't know if a pump and dump was their original intention, but it will be the end of Ripple. precisely my point. Ripple hasn't developed a fair system to distribute them.
many XRP's were just handed out here on the forum one day for those willing to post an address. OpenCoin has just arbitrarily decided to hold back 50% for themselves.
it's not a fair distribution system and thus creates suspicion/resentment.
contrast this with the proof of work system for Bitcoin. POW is one real reason Bitcoin resonates with it's adopters even today.
Quoted for truth People are not stupid, and do have a sense of fairness. You cannot fool them into thinking that OpenCoin's centralized distribution of XRP is okay. If it's already causing this much controversy with users here, it will never be acceptable to your average person. Go long on XRP at your own risk. |
|
|
|
|
XRP is a pre-mined scam. People will not choose slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd do it for free but I don't have an early post in that thread.
|
|
|
|
OpenCoin has done nothing to earn the coins they're holding back except write code for a concept that may or may not work. The notion of "earn" is entirely subjective. Plenty of people hold the opinion that the early miners are unjustly enriched. Early miners participated in a process that was open to anybody, and were not compensated anywhere near 100%. Even Satoshi is not worthy of 100% of all Bitcoins. ...
weren't you very much against Ripple at the beginning. IIRC, you wrote pages and pages of arguments against it. what was the key factor in you switching? +1 Somebody slipped him a few XRP for his trouble? |
|
|
|
Let me clear up some misconceptions. Every object in the ledger database adds to a "reserve" requirement. This is necessary, or else the ledger could be attacked with spam (for example, by writing a script that creates an infinite number of accounts). The reserve requirement for an account is currently 50 XRP (it used to be 200 but OpenCoin lowered it because XRPs went up so much in value). This means that you cannot perform transactions or receive payments until you have received at least 50 XRP in your account.
The reserves in an account can only be spent on transaction fees (currently, the transaction fee is ten millionths of an XRP but it can be changed if all the servers agree). This means that if your account has only 40 XRP you cannot get the 40 XRP "out" of the account. It can only be used to pay for fees. Each object that you create increases the reserve requirement by 25 XRP (it used to be 100). Objects include trust lines and book offers.
Because XRPs are "sequestered" in an account's reserves, it is possible for OpenCoin to give away 50 billion XRPs to new account holders, but without making the value of XRPs fall by too much. The recipients of these XRP giveaways cannot sell the XRP reserves. I believe that the current giveaway is down to 3,000 XRP (down from 50,000). This means that at most 2,950 can be spent. I expect that the size of the giveaway will steadily decrease over time. Developers might get larger dollops though, who knows.
It seems OpenCoin wants to make it free or cheap for people in the early stage to open Ripple accounts, to spur adoption. To this end the appear to be giving away XRP both to let people open accounts and also so that a market forms. So what you're saying is that they want to pump up the value of their holdings as much as possible for the eventual dump? A lot of the ideas behind Ripple are simply brilliant. Nobody denies that Ripple is brilliant. It was brilliant when Ryan Fugger invented it and before OpenCoin hijacked it (and the name of http://opencoin.org/). |
|
|
|
|
Pre-mining is okay because we need to save the environment.
We'll give all of our XRP away.
We'll release the source code eventually.
Trust us. Do not bother thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's compile a list of all of the stupid things that scamcoin creators say to promote their garbage currencies.
1. "You just hate it because you own Bitcoin and are afraid that this revolutionary new currency will make your coins worthless."
2. "It's the free market! That means that anything stupid that I do is right!"
3. "Pre-mine? So what? What's wrong with a guy making a little bit of cash?"
Any more?
|
|
|
|
|
Convenient payment systems already exist. There is no need for one more. Ripple has neither ideological purity nor practical innovation. It is doomed to failure. From the perspective of the average user, it is not much different than Dwolla. From the perspective of the cryptocurrency purist, it is a centralized scam. Ripple sucks.
|
|
|
|
1. Since work units are distributed through universities, or eventually any other distributed research network, there is no way around some level centralization.
Will this centralization only extend to the provisioning of the work units, or will the management of accounts and balances also be centralized? How are the rewards for folding handled from a technical perspective? Is it simply one private key held by whoever controls the folding that has the ability to inject an arbitrary amount of coins into the system as a reward? Will there be a trust-fee way for users to verify from a global perspective that coins are only being rewarded specifically for folding and not simply being created out of thin air? 2. Protien folding will not effect the blockchain. hashers will secure the blockchain (confirm in previous post). Hashers will be sharing a portion measured by bench marking hardware of similar value. What incentive is there for hashers to not just eventually kick the folders out of the blockchain? They don't do anything to secure it but do take away rewards that could go to the hashers. It sounds like you have an incentive problem. Since the system is already fairly centralized, do you even need a blockchain? 3. Yes, the popular demand for Bionc (and others) added to this might not be far away. Assuming the system is opened up to general distributed computation, will anybody be able to send out work units to be used for generating CureCoins or will you have to register with a centralized entity to do so? How do you intend on keeping the varied participants in this scheme honest? 4. I think what you asking is about : difficulty rises will be similar to other coins, but not as extreme, and the starting difficulty and retargets designed to prevent huge swings in difficulty. If this isnt what your after , sorry, i try to study many fields but economics bores the hell out of me. Thats why im listening closely to the economists giving me advice about this. What I was asking is how many CureCoins will there be, and how quickly will they be generated? |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it funny to see people repeating the same mistakes all over again? All of you supporting the latest scamcoin should read this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
