Positive news from Ripple (XRP)

[shyliar]

It seems you're confirming that my statement that the wording of this article suggests it has nothing to do with the public XRP is likely accurate. I do understand the necessity of privacy utilizing an ILP. How does ripple view these types of threads that use misleading news articles to pump the public chain?

I don't agree with your premise for the reasons that I explained. That FI's can make their payments off ledger and still have them be bridged by XRP when that's to their advantage is a plus, not a minus. If it's misleading not to mention this, it's only because it understates the value proposition. The only way it would be misleading is if anyone said or implied that these payments were being bridged by XRP today. If you see anyone doing that, I will loudly condemn it.

I'll just accept that you don't understand the purpose of this thread then.

[JoelKatz]

I'll just accept that you don't understand the purpose of this thread then.

Or you are seeing what you want to see and not what's there.

But I think you're missing the big picture entirely. Maybe you assume that other people see things through the same lens you do, but that may not be the case. Maybe others understand that the obstacle to getting FI's to use blockchains is not the blockchain but it's everything else. It's integration, compliance, regulatory, business rules, and so on. These are all the things Ripple has been doing and announcing.

On the blockchain side, you need low cost, high speed, and good volume. All areas in which RCL beats Bitcoin. If you're going to use a crypto-currency, it has to have good liquidity. XRP does not check that box yet. But the bigger problem, as I explained upthread, is everything else. And every bank that uses Ripple's software for live payments has the everything else.

[1ofthemany]

It seems you're confirming that my statement that the wording of this article suggests it has nothing to do with the public XRP is likely accurate. I do understand the necessity of privacy utilizing an ILP. How does ripple view these types of threads that use misleading news articles to pump the public chain?

I don't agree with your premise for the reasons that I explained. That FI's can make their payments off ledger and still have them be bridged by XRP when that's to their advantage is a plus, not a minus. If it's misleading not to mention this, it's only because it understates the value proposition. The only way it would be misleading is if anyone said or implied that these payments were being bridged by XRP today. If you see anyone doing that, I will loudly condemn it.

I'll just accept that you don't understand the purpose of this thread then.

A friendly advice: it's you who should get a clue.

[ThomasVeil]

Ripple is not a cryptocurrency. It's some sort of bank coin. So I don't get why it is even on CMC - might as well put paypal there.

[1ofthemany]

Ripple is not a cryptocurrency. It's some sort of bank coin. So I don't get why it is even on CMC - might as well put paypal there.

Perhaps you should do some research on the definition of crypto currency. Why bother being so opinionated, when you obviously haven't got the slightest knowledge of the subject?

[ThomasVeil]

Maybe you should take the 4 seconds yourself: Google what a cryptocurrency is. Then notice that it doesn't apply to Ripple.   

There was no reason for it ever to have so high value. It's 100% speculation - as such it can crash as quickly as it rose - for no other reason than speculators changing their mood.

[1ofthemany]

Maybe you should take the 4 seconds yourself: Google what a cryptocurrency is. Then notice that it doesn't apply to Ripple.   

There was no reason for it ever to have so high value. It's 100% speculation - as such it can crash as quickly as it rose - for no other reason than speculators changing their mood.

You're hopeless. It's the same thing as arguing with a religious fundamentalist. What do you want me to answer to that "It's 100% speculation" claim? Bitcoin is not speculation? Ethereum is not speculation? Are you serious?

Do you know how Ripple Consensus Ledger works? Do you know how it can be used to route transactions through Interledger Protocol from private bank ledgers via Escrow? Do you know how PayChan works?

Get a fucking clue.

[ThomasVeil]

You're hopeless. It's the same thing as arguing with a religious fundamentalist. What do you want me to answer to that "It's 100% speculation" claim? Bitcoin is not speculation? Ethereum is not speculation? Are you serious?

Yes, if you can't argue against what I said, then best invent points I've never made and then defeat them.

Do you know how Ripple Consensus Ledger works? Do you know how it can be used to route transactions through Interledger Protocol from private bank ledgers via Escrow? Do you know how PayChan works?

Which means it's not a cryptocurrency, but a private bank coin. Did you actually look up yourself what you said I should?

[uchalkql]

What concerns me about these types of articles is they often specifically go out of their way not to mention if it involves a private blockchain or something that is publically available. Ethereum has been using that type of deception where many of the articles turn out to be referencing a private chain; but, the announcement is used to pump the public chain. The wording of this article suggests to me that it has nothing to do with the public XRP.

It's unfortunate that this type of deception has become commonplace.

We've been pretty clear that our strategy is to eliminate obstacles to payments being bridged with XRP. The obstacles are eliminated whether the payment takes place on the public ledger or off it.

It's precisely the same situation with bitcoin. People using colored coins on ledger don't really help the value of bitcoins much. But companies exchanging bitcoins, even off ledger, do.

Really the location of the payment doesn't much matter.

We spent several years trying to convince FIs to make transactions on a public ledger. We had some success, but the requirement to use a single, public ledger brought huge downsides. It reduces privacy. It limits throughput. And it means everyone has to transact by the exact same, inflexible rules even though people really do want different things.

It is way, way better to have the option to use a public blockchain where its benefits make sense and avoid it where they don't.

So we changed our approach. Now, we have a software product that takes care of everything that has to happen around a payment. The actual payment itself can take place on a public ledger or it can take place using ILP. FIs seem to like this approach a lot. The objections to being forced to hold a crypto-currency, forced to transact in public, forced to rely on third parties whose performance can't be guaranteed, and so on are lifted. Now, if XRP can bridge that payment, there's no technical obstacle.

The beauty is that banks can use this system even if XRP can't bridge a single payment. And then, when it can effectively bridge one in a thousand payments, it will. And if it can ever effectively bridge one in a hundred payments, that will happen. It's a path to solve the various chicken and egg problems where nobody will invest in a system that makes using a crypto-currency even possible until there's enough volume/capacity to handle a significant fraction of payments.

Then, we can pick the best corridors and target them, and the payments will flow.

wow. amazing explanation. thanks for sharing this info.

That's exactly what I thought. It makes no sense for banks to use XRP, and a public network would be a huge bottleneck (even if in the future this might happen). It's said that XRP was created to prevent spam, but you don't need it in a permissioned network.
Mentioning crypto currency to bankers only put question marks over their head ( ) and it's a pretty bad strategy.

But without XRP, how does Ripple solve correspondent banking problem?
An IOU would be like nostro/vostro accounts, and if there is not a direct trust relationship you would still have intermediaries.

[JoelKatz]

Mentioning crypto currency to bankers only put question marks over their head ( ) and it's a pretty bad strategy.

Our initial approach was to pitch to FI's to do all their transactions on a public ledger. Most of them saw the advantages, but they didn't like the loss of privacy, scalability, ability to customize rules, and so on. So we changed our approach.

But the opposition to crypto currencies is slowly changing. We're finding that FI's are becoming more and more receptive to crypto-currencies. Being able to use them off-ledger helps a lot. Most of what they're opposed to comes from the blockchain/ledger part, not the crypto-currency part. And, who knows, they may even come around on that part over time.

But without XRP, how does Ripple solve correspondent banking problem?

There are a lot of different problems all tangled up. You don't have to solve all of them to have a viable product. For example, just the lack of pre-transfer setup is a big enough problem that you could have a viable banking payment product just by solving that. Just the lack of transparency into the status of a payment is a big enough problem.

An IOU would be like nostro/vostro accounts, and if there is not a direct trust relationship you would still have intermediaries.

Right, and the point of ILP is that the intermediary doesn't have to be trusted, so you can use *any* intermediary. Likely, day one the intermediary for almost all payments will be whatever intermediary it is today. Maybe that's the sending bank's FX desk. Maybe it's a correspondent. So you'll get the setup/transparency benefits, but not FX/intermediary cost savings.

But the point is that you've changed the ground rules. You could argue that the Internet won't really change anything -- the same customers will access the same data, they'll just do it more quickly and in a standardized way. First, that's a big win. But second, once you have a common way to plug customers into data, you can add all kinds of new customers and new data that you didn't have before. Same here. Day one, the funds will take the same rails. But very quickly, new intermediaries and new services will pop up because they have a framework to plug into.

Just as the Internet made it possible for anyone to provide data to any user, Ripple could make it possible for any intermediary to bridge payments between any endpoints.

[uchalkql]

Thanks a lot JoelKatz. very transparent and informative as always!

some more questions. =)

Mentioning crypto currency to bankers only put question marks over their head ( ) and it's a pretty bad strategy.

Our initial approach was to pitch to FI's to do all their transactions on a public ledger. Most of them saw the advantages, but they didn't like the loss of privacy, scalability, ability to customize rules, and so on. So we changed our approach.

But the opposition to crypto currencies is slowly changing. We're finding that FI's are becoming more and more receptive to crypto-currencies. Being able to use them off-ledger helps a lot. Most of what they're opposed to comes from the blockchain/ledger part, not the crypto-currency party. And, who knows, they may even come around on that part over time.

could you mention what they are opposed from the blockchain/ledger part? is it just what you mentioned above (privacy, ...) or are there other things?

I also don't think that bankers are against using a crypto currency, but I think there are at least two things in order for them to use it:
1. they must know how the money supply works, who has control over it, how it will be distributed. I think they can eventually use a cryto currency, but one THEY have control over it. I think it will be very hard for them to use one crypto currency that a company has control, because they would be to vulnerable.
2. the currency should be regulated. Who can create it. And this is a big problem when we consider many countries. Maybe there would need to be a member of each central bank that is using the network.

But without XRP, how does Ripple solve correspondent banking problem?

There are a lot of different problems all tangled up. You don't have to solve all of them to have a viable product. For example, just the lack of pre-transfer setup is a big enough problem that you could have a viable banking payment product just by solving that. Just the lack of transparency into the status of a payment is a big enough problem.

yes. cost, transparency and time. SWIFT gpi tries to solve transparency and time, but for what I saw they solve transparency and improves time for same timezone for the same day, but it still takes longer than Ripple that settles in seconds.

I'm wondering how Ripple reduces cost comparing to correspondent banking, as I highlighted your comment below.
Don't you have market makers in the permissioned network? If not, why not? Why would banks not allow market makers? It would be risk free for them, right? and it would also reduce the transactions' cost.

I think Ripple probably has potential to reduce infrastructure cost, right?

An IOU would be like nostro/vostro accounts, and if there is not a direct trust relationship you would still have intermediaries.

Right, and the point of ILP is that the intermediary doesn't have to be trusted, so you can use *any* intermediary. Likely, day one the intermediary for almost all payments will be whatever intermediary it is today. Maybe that's the sending bank's FX desk. Maybe it's a correspondent. So you'll get the setup/transparency benefits, but not FX/intermediary cost savings.

But the point is that you've changed the ground rules. You could argue that the Internet won't really change anything -- the same customers will access the same data, they'll just do it more quickly and in a standardized way. First, that's a big win. But second, once you have a common way to plug customers into data, you can add all kinds of new customers and new data that you didn't have before. Same here. Day one, the funds will take the same rails. But very quickly, new intermediaries and new services will pop up because they have a framework to plug into.

Just as the Internet made it possible for anyone to provide data to any user, Ripple could make it possible for any intermediary to bridge payments between any endpoints.

I hope it happens. I really hope the project works.

[mining1]

XRP is an outright scam. Ripple themselves stated XRP is not needed to transact on Ripple. Proof is their own website https://ripple.com/xrp-portal/
Most people believe that, if banks use ripple, they buy XRP too. But why would they if it's not needed ?
XRP was released as a token for the same reason some of these projects release coins for their own projects, even though it is not needed and has no reason to exist outside speculation; to make money. So basically they hope people will use it ( as what, i don't know, certainly not as money because ripple is a private company, not an open source project ).

For people to understand what i mean, the same situation was with a developer team that released a project on ethereum platform, a team called ether.camp. They released a project on ethereum called the virtual accelerator . The project is okay-ish, except that they released their own token which has no usage whatsoever if you don't take into consideration speculation.
For a token to exist on a platform, it needs a purpose. Most existing projects aim and hope they will become currency, and that's a reason enough. But some projects, like Ripple, even though they're good as technology and have usage, they don't need their token for their platform to work. Imagine ether wasn't needed on ethereum platform. Or bitcoin wasn't used/accepted as a currency in some places.

Do your research before buying into these kind of projects, they can make you money via speculation but you can lose more than you can gain, because you're not a whale to control the manipulation.

[ThomasVeil]

Andreas Antonopoulos explained what Ripple is pretty well: "Blockchain vs. Bullshit"

[PentagonPinnacle]

The rise gradual rise in PPS over the past month or so is due to years of development and now finally adoption by multiple banks.

The fact is these banks collectively could buy out the XRP surplus at these prices and that very well may be happening.

Ripple has introduced a platform and a coin for banks & it makes sense users/banks would maintain use of the XRP.

This is incredible and the value of this project has not yet been realized, just a matter of time before Google kicks in, if I recall they were involved in this project from the very beginning.

For those that called a P & D last time good luck not making any money.    

[uchalkql]

The rise gradual rise in PPS over the past month or so is due to years of development and now finally adoption by multiple banks.

The fact is these banks collectively could buy out the XRP surplus at these prices and that very well may be happening.

Ripple has introduced a platform and a coin for banks & it makes sense users/banks would maintain use of the XRP.

This is incredible and the value of this project has not yet been realized, just a matter of time before Google kicks in, if I recall they were involved in this project from the very beginning.

For those that called a P & D last time good luck not making any money.    

I think you didn't read what JoelKatz just wrote, or you are just telling lies to deceive people to buy XRP.
Banks have NO intention to buy or maintain XRP.

[InvestorCol]

How high do you think the latest rise will go?

[PentagonPinnacle]

The rise gradual rise in PPS over the past month or so is due to years of development and now finally adoption by multiple banks.

The fact is these banks collectively could buy out the XRP surplus at these prices and that very well may be happening.

Ripple has introduced a platform and a coin for banks & it makes sense users/banks would maintain use of the XRP.

This is incredible and the value of this project has not yet been realized, just a matter of time before Google kicks in, if I recall they were involved in this project from the very beginning.

For those that called a P & D last time good luck not making any money.    

I think you didn't read what JoelKatz just wrote, or you are just telling lies to deceive people to buy XRP.
Banks have NO intention to buy or maintain XRP.

yeah perhaps you should get someone to interpret what he said to you...

Where did he rule out XRP ?

[JoelKatz]

could you mention what they are opposed from the blockchain/ledger part? is it just what you mentioned above (privacy, ...) or are there other things?

It really all comes down to being forced to accept things they didn't like. The things they were forced to do were:

Hold an asset they didn't understand.
Transact according to rules they had no say in.
Rely on third parties they had no contract with.
Have no guarantees regarding reliability.
Have little or no say over the way the rules might change.

And there were a lot of objections relating to the specifics of particular proposals.

For example, for bitcoin, many didn't like the involvement of the Chinese. For all they knew, North Korea might have a major investment in mining. And, of course, Ripple couldn't guarantee that people wouldn't trust validators run by North Korea.

The particular proposal Ripple was making used on-ledger, non-XRP assets. The major specific objections to this system largely boiled down to its complexity. Having to mirror part of your private ledger into a public ledger coupled with the uncertain legal status of obligations on the ledger was a problem. Did RCL actually represent a legally valid debt? Or was the debt a separate thing from the ledger entry? Could they legally hold a volatile asset like XRP, even to pay fees? And so on.

Many of these objections have faded over time. Some of them are still just as prevalent today as they were then. ILP answers almost all of these.

[uchalkql]

Thank you very much!

could you mention what they are opposed from the blockchain/ledger part? is it just what you mentioned above (privacy, ...) or are there other things?

It really all comes down to being forced to accept things they didn't like. The things they were forced to do were:

Hold an asset they didn't understand.
Transact according to rules they had no say in.
Rely on third parties they had no contract with.
Have no guarantees regarding reliability.
Have little or no say over the way the rules might change.

And there were a lot of objections relating to the specifics of particular proposals.

For example, for bitcoin, many didn't like the involvement of the Chinese. For all they knew, North Korea might have a major investment in mining. And, of course, Ripple couldn't guarantee that people wouldn't trust validators run by North Korea.

The particular proposal Ripple was making used on-ledger, non-XRP assets. The major specific objections to this system largely boiled down to its complexity. Having to mirror part of your private ledger into a public ledger coupled with the uncertain legal status of obligations on the ledger was a problem. Did RCL actually represent a legally valid debt? Or was the debt a separate thing from the ledger entry? Could they legally hold a volatile asset like XRP, even to pay fees? And so on.

Many of these objections have faded over time. Some of them are still just as prevalent today as they were then. ILP answers almost all of these.

[Bunsomjelican]

All these years Ripple always comes out with news that are supposed to be good. The altcoiners here, who are really closet bitcoiners, buy and they all lose money. If that news is really good then why is everyone dumping their XRP? The only people who are making money out of this is Ripple the company.

So far, for what I monitored it in bittrex last night xrp was 0.00004BTC I don't know if it is pumping only or what?
of to all xrp holders it is favored to them because they can set their xrp to sell it for them to get their profit.