Ripple or Bitcoin

[Este Nuno]

It appears that as prices for Ripples rise (they are currently valued higher than Bitcoin's market cap), OpenCoin will reduce the rate of distribution instead of sticking to a plan. Back when they first began handing out in this forum, they sent 50k XRP. They reduced this slowly, and now they are giving out 1k XRP. So, I believe they think that being valued over Bitcoin market cap is a fair price, or that they think they must maintain it to continue generating profits selling their coins.

Because OpenCoin has no plans in monetary policy and likely spontaneously changes their plans based on where the price is and where they would like it to go, it is probably prone to bubbles, even more so than Bitcoin, where the block chain relentlessly distributes according to an algorithm, no matter what.

They set themselves up between a rock and a hard place, if they want to maintain the price, at this rate of distirbution it will take more than half a century to inject the 50 billion XRPs they promised into the market, if they go quicker.....

Half a century sounds reasonable considering the scope of their ambition.

[1714254593]

1714254593

[MPOE-PR]

Because OpenCoin has no plans in monetary policy and likely spontaneously changes their plans based on where the price is and where they would like it to go, it is probably prone to bubbles, even more so than Bitcoin, where the block chain relentlessly distributes according to an algorithm, no matter what.

Wherein by "prone to bubbles" what you really mean is "OpenCoin are deliberately trying to inflate a bubble in the hopes they will profit off the ignorant Bitcoin user".

[misterbigg]

there is also XRP, which is a (small) step forward compared to BTC.

We don't know that for sure - there's no peer reviewed study of the consensus algorithm.

[mmeijeri]

OK, which may be a small step forward, though off-chain add-ons like OT could provide similar solutions for Bitcoin.

[misterbigg]

...I believe they think that being valued over Bitcoin market cap is a fair price, or that they think they must maintain it to continue generating profits selling their coins.

Note that OpenCoin can't force anyone to buy XRP. The price is set purely through free market forces.

[mobile4ever]

To me, Ripple's failure would have no impact on Bitcoin, and Ripple's success could mean a good chance for Bitcoin to grow.

To a bitcoin purist, ripple is unnecessary. Adding things to something that can be molded, via its open-source and decentralised nature, is a waste of effort.

Not to mention the new decentralized markets that are springing up. Everything is fine.

[misterbigg]

To a bitcoin purist, ripple is unnecessary.

To a bitcoin purist, MtGox is unnecessary. But practically speaking, it is not currently possible for the vast majority of people on the planet to totally exit the fiat money system. Until all bills and living expenses are denominated entirely in bitcoin, "purists" will be unable to avoid it.

[SamS]

...I believe they think that being valued over Bitcoin market cap is a fair price, or that they think they must maintain it to continue generating profits selling their coins.

Note that OpenCoin can't force anyone to buy XRP. The price is set purely through free market forces.

Except for the fact that OpenCoin currently controls the currency -- like a government -- and can more or less set prices...

[SamS]

Amusingly, I received a link last night for free Ripples and the redemption page throws an error when you try to redeem...

[timeofmind]

I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move everything forward.

It would only be a step backward if the IOU system was all there was, but it isn't, there is also XRP, which is a (small) step forward compared to BTC. More importantly, the IOU system combined with the distributed exchange is a major leap forward compared to Mt Gox and its competitors. So in effect Ripple is a huge step forward, and not a step backward.

I don't think you were following the conversation... We were not talking about the IOU system or XRP. We were talking about the need for UNLs and consensus, which make Ripple servers totally dependent on a configured list of trusted nodes to fend off sybil attacks. Since XRP is just a unit of quantity that is being tracked on this weakened transactional system, how could you possibly call it an improvement? In addition, they decided to use a centralized model for distribution of XRP. How is that a step forward? Ripple transactions are dependent on the very weaknesses that Bitcoin was designed to overcome and ripple distribution is completely contrary to the goals of Bitcoin.

[timeofmind]

Note that OpenCoin can't force anyone to buy XRP.

Correct.

The price is set purely through free market forces.

Incorrect. OpenCoin has complete control over the price by having complete control over the supply.

[nameface]

To a bitcoin purist, ripple is unnecessary.

I highly doubt 99.99% of humanity will ever fit your definition of a "Bitcoin purist". However, I can't be sure because I have no idea what you mean.

Can Ripple help Bitcoin grow? This is what's important.

All of the theoretical solutions out there are nice, but what matters is the solutions as they are. Bitcoin and Ripple provide real (prototypical) solutions.

[misterbigg]

We were talking about the need for UNLs and consensus, which make Ripple servers totally dependent on a configured list of trusted nodes to fend off sybil attacks. Since XRP is just a unit of quantity that is being tracked on this weakened transactional system, how could you possibly call it an improvement? In addition, they decided to use a centralized model for distribution of XRP. How is that a step forward? Ripple transactions are dependent on the very weaknesses that Bitcoin was designed to overcome and ripple distribution is completely contrary to the goals of Bitcoin.

After all the XRP have been distributed or sold, the situation for Ripple is no different than that of Bitcoin after every coin has been mined. It just happens on a different timescale. It does not affect the properties of the cryptocurrency, only its distribution. The distribution method does not change the usefulness in serving as a medium of exchange used in commerce, other than having a different volatility profile (which the market can mitigate, i.e. bitpay).

It is an open question whether or not the Ripple consensus model is "weakend." The Ripple developers claim that their method is rigorous and is guaranteed to work correctly when the total number of participating nodes exceeds a relatively small threshold. On the other hand, there is no peer reviewed research paper that "proves" the claim. And Ripple is currently closed source so there's no realistic way to audit this method.

Whether or not Ripple is an improvement upon Bitcoin remains to be seen - it is an unproven statement. It could go in either direction at this point. If, however, the consensus model proves to be workable and correct then it will be clear that Ripple performs many additional useful functions beyond Bitcoin.

If the consensus model turns out to have a fatal weakness, it would be a disaster and Ripple will die on the vine.

[MPOE-PR]

...I believe they think that being valued over Bitcoin market cap is a fair price, or that they think they must maintain it to continue generating profits selling their coins.

Note that OpenCoin can't force anyone to buy XRP. The price is set purely through free market forces.

Yeah yeah, neither did Pirate force anybody. He just used idiots to shill it all to fuck.

Affinity fraud includes investment frauds that prey upon members of identifiable groups, such as religious or ethnic communities, language minorities, the elderly, or professional groups. The fraudsters who promote affinity scams frequently are -- or pretend to be -- members of the group. They often enlist respected community or religious leaders from within the group to spread the word about the scheme, by convincing those people that a fraudulent investment is legitimate and worthwhile. Many times, those leaders become unwitting victims of the fraudster's ruse.

[Este Nuno]

Incorrect. OpenCoin has complete control over the price by having complete control over the supply.

The market takes that into account. It's still a free market in the bigger picture. Opencoin can not control whether or not people purchase XRP. As of now the free market has assigned a value of around 50 XRP per usd.

Opencoin is a service provider. And ripple is the service. XRPs are a part of that service and people deem that they currently have value. That value is partly based upon the market deeming that Opencoin is both trustworthy and capable. Whether that is actually true or not remains to be seen.

[mmeijeri]

Coca Cola also has control over the complete supply of its products.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

OpenCoin Inc spent VC money to buy up XRPs on the open markets to get a bigger market cap so they can attract more VC funding. They can't release too much or the price will fall back to the real values (without their own buying).

Coca Cola also has control over the complete supply of its products.

We're talking about a currency here, not soft drinks. Central banks have complete control over the supply of fiat currency, Satoshi does not.

[mmeijeri]

Doesn't matter, no one is forced to accept XRP.

[Este Nuno]

OpenCoin Inc spent VC money to buy up XRPs on the open markets to get a bigger market cap so they can attract more VC funding. They can't release too much or the price will fall back to the real values (without their own buying).

That's an interesting accusation. Do you have any evidence of this?

[nameface]

Is the "if you can't beat'em, join'em" approach of the Ripple network with regard to financial institutions and the law a necessary step for the future of cryptocurrency?

We do need a solution that can quickly scale to meet the needs of the global transactional currency market. This is part of why I support Ripple.

BTW I can't figure out how expressing my opinion on the state of the payment space makes me a shill? I have no involvement with any companies at all (aside from my own totally unrelated small business).

###

I believe Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to operate outside the laws of the state, eventually forcing laws to be reshaped around it.

Today, the Bitcoin Foundation and Co. are already hustling to regulate everything quickly. Why? Because they perceive it to be in their own personal best interest. They need Satoshi to come back and slap them upside the head.

I think Bitcoin is winning so long as it remains as I propose Satoshi intended it to be. If it tries to "regulate itself" it will regulate itself into oblivion just as the real world hits a tipping point of math-based currency adoption.

If I'm shilling, then I'm shilling for the technological advancement of the human race, and the enrichment of the entire cryptocurrency community.