Ripple or Bitcoin

[mprep]

Ripple is too centralized, in my opinion, to be a threat to Bitcoin.

[1714323482]

1714323482

[1714323482]

1714323482

[nameface]

we're trying to provide him with something truly valuable.

"I'm heavily invested in something called Bitcoin. If you don't know what Bitcoin is....wanna buy some Bitcoin? You sure?" - Stephen Colbert

Bigg, you say you hold BTC, but you also say PoW is a big waste (and, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure you've stated the opinion Bitcoin will be a failure).
Do you have any real use for BTC? Are these holdings based on pure speculation that BTC price will go up in the short term?

[misterbigg]

Bigg, you say you hold BTC, but you also say PoW is a big waste (and, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure you've stated the opinion Bitcoin will be a failure). Do you have any real use for BTC? Are these holdings based on pure speculation that BTC price will go up in the short term?

Whoa...failure? No no...I never said Bitcoin would be a failure. Quite the contrary Bitcoin will be, and already is, a great success! Bitcoin will always fulfill a useful function for as long as it remains the king of proof of work based digital currency.

Proof of work is only wasteful in the sense that Ripple uses a different solution which doesn't require mining. However, the mining in Bitcoin serves a function which is to decentralize the distribution of newly minted coins. Is it possible to distribute coins in a decentralized fashion without proof of work? I'm not so sure that it is. I think this was the genius of Bitcoin.

Ripple solves the problem a different way, and quite elegantly at that. They give themselves all the XRP so that they can fund the company and the software's development. The sequestration effect of ledger reserves allows them to give away billions of XRP without flooding the market (since reserves can't be spent). Ripple provides additional functionality that makes the network useful without having to hoard XRP. The only downside is that it could get people upset.

My main use for BTC is to protect my savings from confiscation and the effects of monetary inflation.

[mmeijeri]

My main use for BTC is to protect my savings from confiscation and the effects of monetary inflation.

It won't really do that if governments find out the identities behind enough addresses. They're well on their way towards doing that, even though it probably isn't part of a master plan - yet.

[SamS]

Bigg, you say you hold BTC, but you also say PoW is a big waste (and, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure you've stated the opinion Bitcoin will be a failure). Do you have any real use for BTC? Are these holdings based on pure speculation that BTC price will go up in the short term?

Whoa...failure? No no...I never said Bitcoin would be a failure. Quite the contrary Bitcoin will be, and already is, a great success! Bitcoin will always fulfill a useful function for as long as it remains the king of proof of work based digital currency.

Proof of work is only wasteful in the sense that Ripple uses a different solution which doesn't require mining. However, the mining in Bitcoin serves a function which is to decentralize the distribution of newly minted coins. Is it possible to distribute coins in a decentralized fashion without proof of work? I'm not so sure that it is. I think this was the genius of Bitcoin.

Ripple solves the problem a different way, and quite elegantly at that. They give themselves all the XRP so that they can fund the company and the software's development. The sequestration effect of ledger reserves allows them to give away billions of XRP without flooding the market (since reserves can't be spent). Ripple provides additional functionality that makes the network useful without having to hoard XRP. The only downside is that it could get people upset.

My main use for BTC is to protect my savings from confiscation and the effects of monetary inflation.

What's elegant about keeping as much as you can get away with?  It's profit maximizing for certain. Elegant though?

Anyway, just to reiterate, Ripple could have and still could raise capital like any other company through a variety of mechanisms that wouldn't require them to keep all the XRP's to "fund" development. I actually find this argument hilarious. If you think about it, Ripple is keeping potentially billions of dollars to "fund" said development. Llet's be honest here, Ripple kept the XRP's to make a truckload of money. Good for them -- if that's the way you think.

[misterbigg]

What's elegant about keeping as much as you can get away with?  It's profit maximizing for certain. Elegant though?

I'm not a Bitcoin Marxist Redistributionist. I see nothing wrong with private enterprise generating revenue / profit as long as they do not violate anyone's property rights. I hope the Ripple founders and company make a zillion dollars. If Ripple delivers on its promise, they deserve it.

[mmeijeri]

Nothing I said was erroneous.  Ripple facilitates IOU's between multiple parties.  IOU's = Debt.  There are zero repayment terms to these IOU's.  It doesn't matter if Ripple was built to track loans, Ripple is the facilitator of the loan.

I disagree with the statement that this is the "point" of Ripple.

[nameface]

My main use for BTC is to protect my savings from confiscation.

I see how it's great for this.

My main use for BTC is to protect my savings from the effects of monetary inflation.

With BTC price instability as it is, is anybody really achieving a long term sort of protection of savings? Or are you worried about hyper-inflation of the USD in the short term? (Who is, really?)

Bitcoin is still a 1B micro-economy under the foot of all of the other moneys of the world. Is it even a deflationary environment? It's too nascent to be anything.

When the real world gets involved new chains could be created on a schedule, just look at all the clone chains today. We could be at the brink of a Keynesian nightmare without even knowing it.

Bitcoin is 100% part of the same insane financial system as the rest of the world at this point, and still in a role of a fringe experiment by geeks.

Joe Regular can change that, but until Bitcoin is ubiquitous (or there's a crisis situation), it's useless to him.

Bitcoin users need to stop using fiat, and use only Bitcoin. Yet today, aren't most transactions just money going in and out of fiat on the exchanges, or idiots playing S.DICE? I'm not seeing how we go from here to there.

[mmeijeri]

I see how it's great for this.

Only as long as you manage to stay anonymous. Otherwise governments can still confiscate any other assets you have. I don't think there is a master plan to try to control Bitcoin yet, what we're seeing is merely low level bureaucrats involved with combating money laundering doing their jobs. But there will be a plan, and part of it will be to gather as many identities behind Bitcoin addresses as possible. And then to pressure people into revealing the identities behind the addresses they've sent BTC to. This could be done simply by taxing all funds that have passed through a known address until the owner reveals who he's made the payment to, then by adding fines, then taint analysis and blacklists etc etc.

[SamS]

What's elegant about keeping as much as you can get away with?  It's profit maximizing for certain. Elegant though?

I'm not a Bitcoin Marxist Redistributionist. I see nothing wrong with private enterprise generating revenue / profit as long as they do not violate anyone's property rights. I hope the Ripple founders and company make a zillion dollars. If Ripple delivers on its promise, they deserve it.

We can agree on that point. It's a business like any other. I just find the argument that Ripple is keeping XRP's to altruistically fund development to be a bit much. By the way, have you ever met a "Bitcoin Marxist Redistributionist" -- that's a mouthful.

[misterbigg]

I...find the argument that Ripple is keeping XRP's to altruistically fund development to be a bit much.

Have you seen how many people they've hired?

[HeroC]

Could Ripple XRP replace bitcoin before it is widely accepted?

No.

More important could Ripple become controlled by business or government?

It already is. By OpenCoin.  The founders of Ripple.

[Stampbit]

Well the conversation has reached a point where we can all start asking,

How can i give all my money to opencoin to fund their unregulated IPO?

[high110]

I don't trust ripple.

[ElectricMucus]

Well the conversation has reached a point where we can all start asking,

How can i give all my money to opencoin to fund their unregulated IPO?

Part of me thinks the zealots are doing just that while you aren't looking.

[CurbsideProphet]

Reading the Ripple forums, it looks as though they promised a giveaway by the end of May and that has yet to happen.  If this is the case, I think this reflects negatively on the Company who should be doing everything under their power right now to build trust. It shouldn't be difficult to distribute a pre-mined product to a small beta user base.  If they're unable to do it at this scale, who's to say they can do it on a much grander one?

Full disclosure, I am not part of the giveaway and will receive nothing whether they pay out or not.

[nameface]

Well the conversation has reached a point where we can all start asking,

How can i give all my money to opencoin to fund their unregulated IPO?

You don't have to buy XRP for their system to work. It's not like Bitcoin where if price stagnates there's no growth.
OpenCoin have major VC backing and will use this to corral payment industry partners. Every bulk purchase of XRP will further stabilize (and increase) the price of XRP.

Ripple is disruptive, but it's not a confrontational solution like Bitcoin which aims to work against a system that is thought of by so many as "trusted". Re: "Ripple is our way to bootstrap to a better world" - Katz.

The tech developer/investor community in the US alone probably has many tens of billions of dollars in disposable cash just waiting to be pumped into new things at a moment's notice. So, why isn't more cash pouring into Bitcoin post-Bitcoin2013 conference? Hm... (maybe it is being pumped into companies, but I doubt it)

Do you think the Winklevii represent smart money owning 1% of all coins? All they can do is piggyback on nerds, and pump and dump. Who will be their greater fool? Joe?

If the tech investment community in the US doesn't even really embrace a technological solution, when will Joe? There are 500M Joe Regulars in The West alone, each with ~$100-$200 of loose cash that should go into Bitcoin, that's $75B. When 1BTC is worth $7500, we'll be on to something, and we'll have some real capital. Now how to make this happen...? I WANT TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN! Don't you? (Will I now be criticized again for wanting to work hard towards a better world while also being able to put food on my family's table?).

Not to sound like a Bitcoin doomsayer, but:

If Ripple can provide both an excellent medium of exchange AND a store of value based on the stability of a global free market of firms in investment and payment spaces, what's the need for Bitcoin? Is it just for hiding money via Zerocoin?

[timeofmind]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here, since this is a thread comparing Bitcoin to Ripple... isn't it a big drawback that Ripple must depend on UNLs in order to fend off sybil attacks? This UNL thing seems rather cumbersome and centralized.

[timeofmind]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here, since this is a thread comparing Bitcoin to Ripple... isn't it a big drawback that Ripple must depend on UNLs in order to fend off sybil attacks? This UNL thing seems rather cumbersome and centralized.

With UNL, you are trusting people to tell you which nodes you should connect to. I thought one of the main reasons the bitcoin invention was considered so great was because it came up with a way to get around the need for cumbersome UNLs by using proof-of-work, and connecting out to many nodes.

[smoothie]

Bitcoin