Ripple or Bitcoin

[MPOE-PR]

For lack of a term lets call it: "conditionally shared source" ok?

No. The traditional way to call that which bills itself X but does not deliver X is fraud. There's no need to invent three word compounds to describe fraudulent enterprises. Yes, I get that fraudsters would very much like to, and I get why, too. Makes no difference.

I'm still trying to find some substance between your insults

This is because you're an idiot. IQ 80 and over has no trouble with this task.

I love it when someone heavily invested in Bitcoin calls Ripple "putrid". You probably don't realize the negative effect you're having on Bitcoin.

Putrid lies. The sort you spin.

This is a popular thread.

Yes indeed, very popular. Since the Uppity Tortilla goon went away all we have to entertain ourselves with is you bunch of idiots.

Granted, that guy had you lot beaten with one hand behind his back, but then again not everybody is born with the gift.

Speaking of which, perhaps it's time to organize a Ripple Sauna Conference, for Ripple SuperCorporations (1.5 through 5 or w/e).

[1715523568]

1715523568

[1715523568]

1715523568

[nameface]

Q: "Who's got all those 11M Bitcoins?"
A: "Some impolite guy in Eastern Europe running an underground asset market, BF members like Erik Voorhees and Roger Ver, an anonymous hacker(s) we're supposed to love because he/they wrote a good program, a few others."

Which was my point.  He's purposely skewing his responses to show his own bias.

I was hyperbolizing to make the point that many newbs will find the true distribution of the money supply highly inequitable.

Ripple, still in beta, with it's "conditionally shared source", is yet immune to such concerns. Ask yourself: Will people really care?

I think the odds are that Ripple will work. Bitcoin works, yet now has chances of dying, which can be lessened by the diligence of members of this forum.

[misterbigg]

many newbs will find the true distribution of the money supply highly inequitable.

It's worth pointing out that a surprisingly large number of networks follow a power-law distribution. That is to say that in Bitcoin, a few people will have disproportionately large balances while the remainder are spread out on the "long tail."

[ElectricMucus]

For lack of a term lets call it: "conditionally shared source" ok?

No. The traditional way to call that which bills itself X but does not deliver X is fraud. There's no need to invent three word compounds to describe fraudulent enterprises. Yes, I get that fraudsters would very much like to, and I get why, too. Makes no difference.

Well Bitcoin calls itself anonymous, but then the transaction history is not only public but also necessarily so. And then when a node makes a transaction it does so using a ip address which is in one way or the other tied to the identity of the user. Can I call Bitcoin a fraud now?
What will it be when the beta ends or the ripple daemon is released before that?

[misterbigg]

when a node makes a transaction it does so using a ip address which is in one way or the other tied to the identity of the user.

The IP address is not a reliable indicator of the original sender, because there is no way to know if the node sending you the transaction originated it, or if it is merely relaying.

[ElectricMucus]

when a node makes a transaction it does so using a ip address which is in one way or the other tied to the identity of the user.

The IP address is not a reliable indicator of the original sender, because there is no way to know if the node sending you the transaction originated it, or if it is merely relaying.

Yeah but if I am a goverment I can go to that node, and then to the next one until I find the right one. Under a deep packet inspection regime like china does it isn't even necessary to do this physically. And when I have seized the computer from which the transaction was sent I have cryptographic proof that the transaction was sent from somebody controlling it.

[JoelKatz]

Well Bitcoin calls itself anonymous, but then the transaction history is not only public but also necessarily so. And then when a node makes a transaction it does so using a ip address which is in one way or the other tied to the identity of the user. Can I call Bitcoin a fraud now?

Yeah, it's silliness. One of the major differences between Bitcoin and the systems most people would compare Bitcoin to is that Bitcoin is much more anonymous. This makes it perfectly reasonable to describe Bitcoin as "anonymous" in a brief description or as a tag line. To call people "liars" or "frauds" because of such a description would be lunacy. Of course, anyone who wants the details can easily find out precisely how anonymous or not-anonymous Bitcoin is.

[Atruk]

Speaking of which, perhaps it's time to organize a Ripple Sauna Conference, for Ripple SuperCorporations (1.5 through 5 or w/e).

Does the one laptop with all 5000 of the RIPou's, XRPs, and ledgers get left to either:
 (a) get ruined because it is a laptop surrounded by steam
 (b) get stolen by the staff/CIA/FSB
 (c) Well a happened, but saying b happened sounds cooler, then delete everything, followed by OMGWTFBBQ there's crayons in the psych ward?

[CurbsideProphet]

Q: "Who's got all those 11M Bitcoins?"
A: "Some impolite guy in Eastern Europe running an underground asset market, BF members like Erik Voorhees and Roger Ver, an anonymous hacker(s) we're supposed to love because he/they wrote a good program, a few others."

Which was my point.  He's purposely skewing his responses to show his own bias.

I was hyperbolizing to make the point that many newbs will find the true distribution of the money supply highly inequitable.

They'll only see it as inequitable if they believe your false assertions.  You have no idea how much Bitcoin's Silk Road, Voorhees, Ver, Satoshi or anyone else has.  "A few others" is an understatement to say the least.  How is the distribution of Bitcoin less than XRP, the vast majority of which is held by one corporation and its funders?

Equality in this context is complete crap anyway.  In all business ventures the creators and early adopters will always have an unequal share.  There's roughly another 10M BTC to be mined, no one is stopping anyone from grabbing their fair share.  Like I keep pointing out to you, the reaction you're getting is due to how you're spinning your answers.  You're not talking about the 10M BTC that's out there in the free market for anyone to obtain or that you can obtain free Bitcoin from numerous sites.  You're telling people they need to upfront $130, which isn't true, you can easily buy $1 of BTC as you can $1 of XRP.  And you could actually buy something with that $1 in BTC, the $1 in XRP only allows you to activate your account.

I don't know if you're genuinely trying to pitch both technologies to "newbs" or not, but if you are, I'm trying to show you why you're getting a more positive response to one over the other.  It has nothing to do with the technology, it has everything to do with your pitch.

[nameface]

Q: "Who's got all those 11M Bitcoins?"
A: "Some impolite guy in Eastern Europe running an underground asset market, BF members like Erik Voorhees and Roger Ver, an anonymous hacker(s) we're supposed to love because he/they wrote a good program, a few others."

Which was my point.  He's purposely skewing his responses to show his own bias.

I was hyperbolizing to make the point that many newbs will find the true distribution of the money supply highly inequitable.

They'll only see it as inequitable if they believe your false assertions.  You have no idea how much Bitcoin's Silk Road, Voorhees, Ver, Satoshi or anyone else has.  "A few others" is an understatement to say the least.  How is the distribution of Bitcoin less than XRP, the vast majority of which is held by one corporation and its funders?

Equality in this context is complete crap anyway.  In all business ventures the creators and early adopters will always have an unequal share.  There's roughly another 10M BTC to be mined, no one is stopping anyone from grabbing their fair share.  Like I keep pointing out to you, the reaction you're getting is due to how you're spinning your answers.  You're not talking about the 10M BTC that's out there in the free market for anyone to obtain or that you can obtain free Bitcoin from numerous sites.  You're telling people they need to upfront $130, which isn't true, you can easily buy $1 of BTC as you can $1 of XRP.  And you could actually buy something with that $1 in BTC, the $1 in XRP only allows you to activate your account.

I don't know if you're genuinely trying to pitch both technologies to "newbs" or not, but if you are, I'm trying to show you why you're getting a more positive response to one over the other.  It has nothing to do with the technology, it has everything to do with your pitch.

Honestly, I'd have serious reservations about trying to pitch the opportunity of Bitcoin mining to Joe Regular.

You're right that anybody can buy even $5 worth of Bitcoin. The question is: WHY will they buy Bitcoin?

How to convince Joe Regular to buy them and use them? He knows about them. He's watching the ticker. Getting them is easy. Using them is easy-ish. Why isn't he buying? Shouldn't the price of Bitcoin be $200 or $500 by now? It's not, because he's not buying.

People won't trade in the FED and/or wtvr amount of sovereignty comes from a national currency for the fucking novelty of it. They need MANY MORE reasons why Bitcoin is great!

Ripple, a threat to Bitcoin? Let a few people pitch it that way if they want. I think the idea is ridiculous. The space is huge, and there's room for many innovative solutions. Bitcoin's competition is the USD, EUR, YEN, etc... Not Ripple. Slanderers of Ripple are shooting themselves in the foot.

[ivanc]

I know i shouldn't post on here, but well, this thread has been spoiled so much at this point that it doesn't matter anymore, so i might as well try to make it more entertaining.

We can all make a lot of money with this if we can get Joe to start buying.

That's more a Ripple's way of thinking. Bitcoin was not created to take advantage of "Joe Regular". Enrichment of early adopters at the expense of Joe is a collateral damage and would have been avoided if there had been any way to avoid it. There isn't.

We need better ideas. The future is SO ours.

That's so "american". One sentence: "let's make this Bitcoin Ponzi scheme bigger so we can all get richer!". Next one: "Let's make the world a better place together! Let's fix what isn't broken!".
Mix the two together and you get a recipe for disaster.

[nameface]

We can all make a lot of money with this if we can get Joe to start buying.

That's more a Ripple's way of thinking. Bitcoin was not created to take advantage of "Joe Regular". Enrichment of early adopters at the expense of Joe is a collateral damage and would have been avoided if there had been any way to avoid it. There isn't.

We need better ideas. The future is SO ours.

That's so "american". One sentence: "let's make this Bitcoin Ponzi scheme bigger so we can all get richer!". Next one: "Let's make the world a better place together! Let's fix what isn't broken!".
Mix the two together and you get a recipe for disaster.

You're missing all of my points. We aren't trying to take advantage of Joe Regular, we're trying to provide him with something truly valuable. If we succeed, the value of BTC goes up, if we fail it goes down.

Also, better ideas are what the future is built on. We can have those ideas, and earn new capital based on making them a reality. I'm not an idealist, this is how civilization really works right now. I'm not even saying that I'm a fan of it.

[misterbigg]

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

[tclo]

Ripple had a chance to do something significant and special but they are dropping the ball at the 20 yard line.   Where is the giveaways they promised for this month (not the bitcointalk thread but the others) and why is their ripple client in such poor condition...just sad.

[QuantPlus]

Ripple, a threat to Bitcoin? Let a few people pitch it that way if they want. I think the idea is ridiculous. The space is huge, and there's room for many innovative solutions. Bitcoin's competition is the USD, EUR, YEN, etc... Not Ripple. Slanderers of Ripple are shooting themselves in the foot.

Ripple is not a threat to BTC...
The ability to set up instant exchanges, create custom securities, fast transactions, etc...
Will all benefit the BTC Ecosystem dramatically.

Slanderers of Ripple are are putting THEIR interests AHEAD of Bitcoin...
BTC attracts sociopaths like shit attracts flies...
Behind that thinnest veneer of idealism people here care ONLY about filthy lucre.

And with a tiny $1 billion float BTC is not competing with Fiat currencies...
LOW VELOCITY Bitcoin is not even a "currency", it's a "commodity" people are hoarding...
And it will end up being just that = a GOOD, quaint store of value like gold.

Generation 2.0 networks will take over the crypto-currency space...
Since Bitcoin "development" is dysfunctional, ad hoc, and woefully underfunded...
And grinds to a halt every time Gavin takes a leak.

But in a parallel universe...
Bitcoin's hip, mysterious, post-cultural, omnipotent God-figure...
Will end the Times of Tribulation with His return and the Rapture...
As Early Adopters prevail in the final battle against unworthy Late Adopters... 
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven.

[nameface]

Since Bitcoin "development" is dysfunctional, ad hoc, and woefully underfunded...
And grinds to a halt every time Gavin takes a leak.

Oh Gavin!

I'm unfortunately starting to see Bitcoin like Gold 2.0 now too. The network can't handle more than, what, 5 or 10 transactions per second? Won't big business just laugh at BTC as a B&M payment solution?

[mmeijeri]

Yeah but if I am a goverment I can go to that node, and then to the next one until I find the right one.

That's difficult though, and impossible if the data is thrown away. Do current clients even keep this information around?

Under a deep packet inspection regime like china does it isn't even necessary to do this physically.

Encryption should solve that. Meshnets will also help.

 And when I have seized the computer from which the transaction was sent I have cryptographic proof that the transaction was sent from somebody controlling it.

Cryptographic proof?

[Sukrim]

 And when I have seized the computer from which the transaction was sent I have cryptographic proof that the transaction was sent from somebody controlling it.

Cryptographic proof?

Private keys in a wallet are quite sufficient proof that someone actually controls the funds on a certain address.

[mmeijeri]

Ah, I see.

[Este Nuno]

Ripple, a threat to Bitcoin? Let a few people pitch it that way if they want. I think the idea is ridiculous. The space is huge, and there's room for many innovative solutions. Bitcoin's competition is the USD, EUR, YEN, etc... Not Ripple. Slanderers of Ripple are shooting themselves in the foot.

Ripple is not a threat to BTC...
The ability to set up instant exchanges, create custom securities, fast transactions, etc...
Will all benefit the BTC Ecosystem dramatically.

Slanderers of Ripple are are putting THEIR interests AHEAD of Bitcoin...
BTC attracts sociopaths like shit attracts flies...
Behind that thinnest veneer of idealism people here care ONLY about filthy lucre.

And with a tiny $1 billion float BTC is not competing with Fiat currencies...
LOW VELOCITY Bitcoin is not even a "currency", it's a "commodity" people are hoarding...
And it will end up being just that = a GOOD, quaint store of value like gold.

Generation 2.0 networks will take over the crypto-currency space...
Since Bitcoin "development" is dysfunctional, ad hoc, and woefully underfunded...
And grinds to a halt every time Gavin takes a leak.

But in a parallel universe...
Bitcoin's hip, mysterious, post-cultural, omnipotent God-figure...
Will end the Times of Tribulation with His return and the Rapture...
As Early Adopters prevail in the final battle against unworthy Late Adopters...  
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven.

I'm your biggest fan QuantPlus.

I want to work for your fund.