Ripple is in major trouble

[bitcoinvestor]

maybe XRP can still survive with smaller banks and co-op banks.. Who needs these big players.. time to cut losses

The the different concept of bitcoin. Bitcoin still remain decentralzed because the creator is really independence not greedy with the money. While other crypto ( not all) take opportunity to make wealth for themselves that's why make coin with centralized system. They colaborate with banking industries so what's the different crypto and banks?

[1714077284]

1714077284

[1714077284]

1714077284

[Coffee2015]

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Japan-s-SBI-megabanks-take-stakes-in-blockchain-group-R3?n_cid=NARAN012

http://www.c[Suspicious link removed]m/2017/05/23/r3-funding-blockchain-intel-bank-of-america-hsbc.html



So Ripple signed Japan SBI which was a group of about 47 banks and created SBI Ripple Asia which caused pump from .20c to .40c but news just came out today that Japan SBI joined R3 and are creating their own coin. R3 has loads of banks on board and is like a Universal Bank Consortium, majority will be owned by the banks in it unlike Ripple. They will use it to implement blockchain solutions to save them money. I saw this coming a mile away. All these banks are investing in their own ILP Ripple type network so they don't have to depend on a third party. Why depend on a third party when you can have your own and save even more? Whales are trying to maintain XRP value as some hold a lot but they can only keep buying so long because noone else is buying.

Below are some competitors in the blockchain banking scene with more coming:


R3
Quorum
Ripple
Axoni
InfoSys


Good bye Swift and Ripple, hello R3 lol get out before the house burns down I've been saying this for awhile now. There is no more good news left for Ripple. They were a shame at Consensus and now their own group just ditched them. Greedy centralized trash.

They still on board of Ripple,
they didnt plan to get out of XRP and they only want to make cloud blockchain and new coin for them.
Please check again the above link as it doesnt say about leaving XRP.
That news was on 23 May 17.

Another link on Nikei:
it only emphasis that they are on Ripple.


Check this word on it:
SBI has also teamed up with Ripple, the U.S. financial technology startup behind the virtual currency XRP, to form the joint venture SBI Ripple Asia. The SBI group plans to begin operating an exchange for virtual currencies this summer, and plans to launch its own such currency, SBI Coin, down the road. 

Conclusions:
- they are on XRP;
- dont be surprised there will be (strong) new coin, I dont know about their final form and game-rules;

Will they do ICO? It is gonna be very wild.

I was about very optimistic about Ripple and had pushed it but I ll wait for next move probably.
By the way,
Thanks to inform that they are still on XRP.

I check Ripple site and there is no news about compete with R3 and some banks leaving XRP,.... so I am still optimistic about XRP.
I wait for the signal and jump

Nice conclusion, will they have ICO?

Okay,
From business point of view, ir seems Ripple is actually stronger,
And for the trading,
It needs good news,... so I think it is a good sign.
Trading is risky, very high risk,....
we always remember that everyone probably has coins and will surprise us.

The real troble is what di we have to do & when?

[virasog]

There was talk about a plan to make a fully decentralized, and yet group governed coin/token.  There were still issues in the idea phase and it may have simply been dropped because of those or like other ideas, the effort was bigger than the idea.  The basics were that, rather than using power or stash as a deterministic means to code forking choices, that X number of random wallet clients would be chosen and those would choose.

[JoelKatz]

This is the type of "ignoring investors comments" that won't win you any brownie points...everybody else take note....

A much more respectable way to approach this would be:

a) to acknowledge the concerns raised as the ripple/xrp concept has evolved
b) acknowledging that investor feedback and comments has been taken on board to evolve things on the right line

You have done neither...actions of ripple and XRP dont match your words. It seems you're unable to have a dialogue so everybody else take note

When people raise honest concerns, I address them honestly. When people mindlessly repeat FUD, make blatanly false accusations, or demand I jump through hoops so that they can continue to pretend they're replying to me, my response is not to try to mine the filth for the honest concerns buried in it. You can find lots of places where I address honest concerns and acknowledge Ripple's weaknesses when responding to people who also honestly acknowledge the weaknesses of other cryptos.

For the XRP that ripple has kept to themselves, for what price was this XRP bought for? Or did they just magically allocate it to themselves by not paying a penny?

The history of Ripple is well-known. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are not honestly raising a concern. You are just asking me to repeat a history lesson for you specifically. If you had an honest concern about the initial distribution, you would explain some way in which what happened concerns you, not ask me to repeat it for you.

[kadscuk]

^Since your a ripple employee, you should be mindful that investors in ripple are reading your comments

You've ignored the question and in my opinion you are commenting arrogantly...which doesn't fill me with confidence.

Everybody else take note. It reflects badly on you and on ripple which are you seeming to represent.

You could have easily answered the question but have deliberately refused to.

Once again, the XRP which ripple has kept for itself, how much was paid for this XRP?

This isnt necessarily for my benefit..its for the benefit of EVERYONE reading this thread.

----

If you want people to invest in XRP, you should be freely willing to disclose information, not posture and position yourself like you are

[JoelKatz]

You've ignored the question and in my opinion you are commenting arrogantly...which doesn't fill me with confidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the question". If you have some question you actually want an answer to, ask it and I'll happily answer it. But if you know the answer and want some explanation about the answer, don't ask me the question you know the answer to. State the answer to the question and ask me the about the thing you want explained. Ask the question you actually want the answer to and I'll answer it.

But all I saw before was: "For the XRP that ripple has kept to themselves, for what price was this XRP bought for? Or did they just magically allocate it to themselves by not paying a penny?"

It's common knowledge that the founders gifted Ripple 80 billion XRP, primarily to align incentives. One of the disadvantages of distributed agreement protocols like Ripple's consensus is that, unlike PoW, there is no known way to use them to perform an initial distribution of a token. While they do have many advantages (particularly, much faster certainty of confirmation), they do have some disadvantages as well.

Personally, I don't see this as much of a disadvantage anymore. I honestly did back in 2012 or so, when I still thought that PoW would automatically lead to decentralization, censorship resistance, and even provide a way for people with spare computing power to make a little extra money. We now know that it has not quite delivered on that early promise. It has had a naturally centralizing tendency because someone will have the lowest price on electricity and ASICs and that has resulted in a situation where China could censor bitcoin transactions if they want to. It has also sucked many millions of dollars of value that bitcoin created and given it to electric companies and semiconductor manufacturers. Worse, it's turned miners into major stakeholders whose incentives do not always align well with the users, particularly with respect to transaction fees.

By contrast, Ripple's model has kept the value that the network has created in the hands of those who created it and those who supported it rather than those who wasted the most electricity.

[kadscuk]

You've ignored the question and in my opinion you are commenting arrogantly...which doesn't fill me with confidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the question". If you have some question you actually want an answer to, ask it and I'll happily answer it. But if you know the answer and want some explanation about the answer, don't ask me the question you know the answer to. State the answer to the question and ask me the about the thing you want explained. Ask the question you actually want the answer to and I'll answer it.

But all I saw before was: "For the XRP that ripple has kept to themselves, for what price was this XRP bought for? Or did they just magically allocate it to themselves by not paying a penny?"

It's common knowledge that the founders gifted Ripple 80 billion XRP, primarily to align incentives. One of the disadvantages of distributed agreement protocols like Ripple's consensus is that, unlike PoW, there is no known way to use them to perform an initial distribution of a token. While they do have many advantages (particularly, much faster certainty of confirmation), they do have some disadvantages as well.

If you're trying to say that they didnt pay ANY money for the 80 billion XRP, you should say that outright. The question was: what price was paid for the XRP, not whether it was gifted or not (which doesn't exclude a price being paid)

If im honest, you sound like a politician that is trying to steer the conversation in a different direction

Everybody else take note....

[JoelKatz]

If you're trying to say that they didnt pay ANY money for the 80 billion XRP, you should say that outright. The question was: what price was paid for the XRP, not whether it was gifted or not (which doesn't exclude a price being paid)

Okay, we're done. I already made it very, very clear that I was only going to respond to an honest question and not an attempt to pretend that you're replying to me while making me needlessly jump through a hoop for amusement. You may have the last word as many times as you like. If by some chance you do actually happen to post, likely by accident, an honest question, I'll probably still reply to it because that's just how I'm wired.

If you ever find yourself in the San Francisco area, let me know. I'll buy you lunch and we'll talk over a meal. I bet you're a smart, honest guy in person. That's the person I want to engage with.

[Vishnu.Reang]

is ripple really in trouble,at least when it comes to price? Price seems to be on the way up, it came out of falling wedge...most think it will go up nicelly again..

The exchange rates are one of the major indicators. But there are other important factors as well. A constantly rising exchange rate alone doesn't guarantee the long-term survival of a particular crypto currency. It also depends a lot on the user-base expansion, government recognition, unity within the developer community, acceptability from the vendors.etc.

[kadscuk]

If you're trying to say that they didnt pay ANY money for the 80 billion XRP, you should say that outright. The question was: what price was paid for the XRP, not whether it was gifted or not (which doesn't exclude a price being paid)

Okay, we're done. I already made it very, very clear that I was only going to respond to an honest question and not an attempt to pretend that you're replying to me while making me needlessly jump through a hoop for amusement. You may have the last word as many times as you like. If by some chance you do actually happen to post, likely by accident, an honest question, I'll probably still reply to it because that's just how I'm wired.

If you ever find yourself in the San Francisco area, let me know. I'll buy you lunch and we'll talk over a meal. I bet you're a smart, honest guy in person. That's the person I want to engage with.

I'll answer your question for you:

They got 80 billion XRP and they didn't pay ANY money for it. There was no price paid for those tokens whatsoever.

[JoelKatz]

They got 80 billion XRP and they didn't pay ANY money for it. There was no price paid for those tokens whatsoever.

Thank you for confirming that you asked a question you already knew the answer to just to make me needlessly jump through a hoop rather than asking an honest question or making an honest argument.

[kadscuk]

They got 80 billion XRP and they didn't pay ANY money for it. There was no price paid for those tokens whatsoever.

Thank you for confirming that you asked a question you already knew the answer to just to make me needlessly jump through a hoop rather than asking an honest question or making an honest argument.

This isn't about "jumping through hoops" - you're posturing unnecessarily...im asking you direct questions purely to get a direct response

The XRP wasn't paid for, that's the bottom line..you didn't want to answer that directly because you know it would expose a hole in your reasoning

XRP not being paid for means that XRP isn't operating under free market forces - which is what decentralisation is all about

The facts are: since the 80bn XRP wasn't paid for, you're not operating under free market forces at all. You are manipulating the market in order to artificially inflate the liquidity of XRP

That doesnt sound like decentralisation at all. Decentralisation is free market forces, no manipulation, everything being paid for and not allowing any party to gain artificial bias.

You are creating a central system in your actions, no matter how much talk of decentralisation you want to talk about. Actions count more than words.

A much more authentic way of reasoning would be to say you have both central and decentral elements built into the XRP concept...and that there was an attempt to have a balance, and in the end, the free market will win and decide the ultimate outcome.

[JoelKatz]

The facts are: since the 80bn XRP wasn't paid for, you're not operating under free market forces at all. You are manipulating the market in order to artificially inflate the liquidity of XRP

I agree that we are using the value of the XRP to create liquidity.

That doesnt sound like decentralisation at all. Decentralisation is free market forces, no manipulation, everything being paid for and not allowing any party to gain artificial bias.

No party gained any artificial bias. The 80 billion XRP that was gifted to Ripple had *zero* value. Anyone else could have done exactly what Ripple did and gotten the same result.

You are creating a central system in your actions, no matter how much talk of decentralisation you want to talk about. Actions count more than words.

I agree that in no way is the distribution of XRP decentralized.

A much more authentic way of reasoning would be to say you have both central and decentral elements built into the XRP concept...and that there was an attempt to have a balance, and in the end, the free market will win and decide the ultimate outcome.

I think that's an entirely fair statement. When I talk about decentralization, I am only talking about the operation and governance of the network, not the distribution of the token. If you're talking about the distribution of the token, that's entirely different. I see many reasons why you would want operation and governance to be decentralized. To be honest, I see absolutely no reason you would want distribution to be decentralized anymore. Experience since 2012 has shown that just doesn't work very well. But the market will eventually decide.

At the time I first stared working on what became the current Ripple, I saw no reason to want an alternative to PoW. I genuinely believed that it would be inherently fair and decentralizing and would foster good governance (if any was needed) by aligning interests. We now know that is not entirely true, though of course PoW continues to work quite well. But it does not ensure decentralization by itself nor does it necessarily foster good governance. Those things still take work, and to some extent you are fighting the technology.

The biggest problem with PoW though is simply that it cannot be scaled. There is not going to be one blockchain to rule them all because too many people, for legitimate reasons, want too many different things from their blockchains. Some people don't want any complexity that has a performance cost -- they just want fast token movement. Some people have use cases that require more complexity (like cross-currency payments). And PoW won't scale because each such system has to find some way to incentivize the PoW needed to keep its chain secure. There is no known way for smaller systems to do that. Distributed agreement protocol do not have this limitation, though they cannot do an initial token distribution to people who waste power.

[g___]

The facts are: since the 80bn XRP wasn't paid for, you're not operating under free market forces at all. You are manipulating the market in order to artificially inflate the liquidity of XRP

you realize you've described every single business on this planet, right? all businesses offer a service/commodity which YOU decide to pay for... joel has been insanely nice and forthcoming with information, not to mention being generous with his time to engage with the crypto community. show some respect.

[microload]

They got 80 billion XRP and they didn't pay ANY money for it. There was no price paid for those tokens whatsoever.

Thank you for confirming that you asked a question you already knew the answer to just to make me needlessly jump through a hoop rather than asking an honest question or making an honest argument.

This isn't about "jumping through hoops" - you're posturing unnecessarily...im asking you direct questions purely to get a direct response

The XRP wasn't paid for, that's the bottom line..you didn't want to answer that directly because you know it would expose a hole in your reasoning

XRP not being paid for means that XRP isn't operating under free market forces - which is what decentralisation is all about

The facts are: since the 80bn XRP wasn't paid for, you're not operating under free market forces at all. You are manipulating the market in order to artificially inflate the liquidity of XRP

That doesnt sound like decentralisation at all. Decentralisation is free market forces, no manipulation, everything being paid for and not allowing any party to gain artificial bias.

You are creating a central system in your actions, no matter how much talk of decentralisation you want to talk about. Actions count more than words.

A much more authentic way of reasoning would be to say you have both central and decentral elements built into the XRP concept...and that there was an attempt to have a balance, and in the end, the free market will win and decide the ultimate outcome.

Jesus christ kadscuk, why are you being so aggressive? Calm the f*** down. I love when team members of these different crypto companies post on here. Don't push them away with your douchebaggery.

[ðºÞæ]

Can someone explain how it is possible the available supply decreases from time to time? WTF
(Now 17 June 2017 at 38,290,271,363 XRP    )




How can you "loose" the beginning of a Blockchain and Number 32570 becomes the Genesis?

.

[JoelKatz]

Ripple's design does not require history for the system to make forward progress. Storing historical data is always optional.

In the very early days of Ripple, there were only three servers running. All were validators and all were on Amazon's EC2 platform. They were essentially identically configured.

Early versions of rippled did not check disk free space and would continue running even if the disk got full. In addition, they didn't save the ledger header into the node store. All three validators ran out of disk space at substantially the same time.

I took snapshots of the databases of all three validators and attempted to recover the missing ledgers. As I recall, I was able to recover several thousand ledgers and got stuck at 32,570.

All of this occurred before the network was open to the public, before XRP was traded, and before XRP had any value at all.

After the network was opened to the public, several volunteers offered to assist with the recovery process and we made the snapshots from all three servers public. No additional ledgers were recovered.

[patroncito]

This is why open sourcing all your code when you have unique technology is a bad idea. Someone will just take the code and implement their own solution. Better off treating your code as intellectual property.  All these open source coins are inherently worthless from the perspective of all their "unique features" because big corporations will just rip off their ideas.

Yeah deciding on open sourcing your code on your coins is really a risk because any good developer or company may easily counter or delete and defeat you in the market using your own formula so everything must kept secret at all

Ripple was not launched fully open source guys.
They added open source code later over criticisms over crypto idealogy.
Which is now long gone.

And if you think about it.. since Ripple is a centralized company it makes no sense to open source their code.
They did though for one reason !
To appeal to the crowd here so they would buy the Ripple coins.

Don't forget they were shit & pissed on at launch and for years afterwards.
It's only now that they gained traction in the scene.. because the idiots here now are all scammy greedy inept dipshit losers.
A bunch of open mouthed drooling nitwit Investards.
And THEY FUCKING LOVE IT !

Ripple is happy as a pig in shit.. because of the market price of their coin and the free coins all the fancy CEO / CTFO and advisers got on ICO Premined shitcoin launch.

I'd actually rank this bullshit as much worse than LEO COIN.
At least LEO was a mined and far less premined coin etc.
Ripple is scam central and i would never own any of their shitcoins.. no matter how many exchanger ROI'z i get.

So what the FK do you own?. You go to every FKNG thread saying that this coin is a scam, that coin is a scam, the fkng coin is a scam....so what do you think is not a scam?? what the FK do you like??...and if you dont like any coin...what the FK are you doing here??

[cryptoonion888]

Ripple's design does not require history for the system to make forward progress. Storing historical data is always optional.

In the very early days of Ripple, there were only three servers running. All were validators and all were on Amazon's EC2 platform. They were essentially identically configured.

Early versions of rippled did not check disk free space and would continue running even if the disk got full. In addition, they didn't save the ledger header into the node store. All three validators ran out of disk space at substantially the same time.

I took snapshots of the databases of all three validators and attempted to recover the missing ledgers. As I recall, I was able to recover several thousand ledgers and got stuck at 32,570.

All of this occurred before the network was open to the public, before XRP was traded, and before XRP had any value at all.

After the network was opened to the public, several volunteers offered to assist with the recovery process and we made the snapshots from all three servers public. No additional ledgers were recovered.

So those change in number of coins aren't related to the consensus rule?

By the way, i just read this post in reddit, beautiful: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/6362-the-reason-why-xrp-will-be-adopted/

[JoelKatz]

So those change in number of coins aren't related to the consensus rule?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. What change in the number of coins?