Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin

[themusicgod1]

i think the OP is right.

nor do i think Ripple will interface with the existing banking either.  do u really think they will tolerate a new actor in the space that issues themselves 50% of the trading units and maintains control of the code?

Like everything else decentralized, you only need one person to 'interface' with existing banking, somewhere on the network.  Everything else is convenience.

And by the way, if any of you need to interact with the legacy banking system, hit me up a message and we'll try to work something out if you've got credit to me.

[1714039116]

1714039116

[1714039116]

1714039116

[1714039116]

1714039116

[1714039116]

1714039116

[themusicgod1]

Yep. I don't understant Ripple hype. Sounds very stupid idea to me.

Bitcoin all the way!

They aren't mutually exclusive, and it's not a stupid idea.  Ripple has supported Bitcoin since practically day #1, way back in 2009-10 -- it does so because Bitcoin and Ripple are both on the bleeding edge together, and as complementary systems their users share very much the same interests.

[themusicgod1]

why don't you specifically address the
2. Forget OpenCoin and Ripple for the moment, is a trust based system the right way to go in redefining the global transaction system?  One only has to look at the history of banking and banking crises to see that trust based systems are unstable historically. Our most recent experience with this --which has led to the need for entire nations to fund bailouts to prevent the banking system from collapsing -- is only one in a long series of "banking" crises. Arguably, the real problem has been regulatory capture and not "free markets (trust)." Ignoring technology for the moment, is this the right solution to solve a chronic history of abuse? Can you point me to any articles that summarize the "literature" around trust based systems -- and yes I can use Google if needed but prefer not to reinvent the wheel wherever possible.

This is a problem that will be a lot more tractable when we have the 100s of trillion of dollars that central banking bleeds out of our lives, on a global level, even if OpenCoin takes a chunk of it.  This abuse is real and we should not discount it.  I believe Ripple will allow us to see the causes and effects of this abuse more clearly.

[hashman]

Like everything else decentralized, you only need one person to 'interface' with existing banking, somewhere on the network.  Everything else is convenience.

And by the way, if any of you need to interact with the legacy banking system, hit me up a message and we'll try to work something out if you've got credit to me.

Sure, we need something like 10 million cash USD liquidity daily please.  I'll go ahead and email you where to send the next batch every half second or so.  Thanks

[cypherdoc]

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

[smoothie]

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

So XRP has sort of a demurrage implemented? On top of that given ripple is closed source they can inflate the XRP supply if they wanted.

Wow I rather use the federal reserve system if this is the case. Lol


Maybe demurrage is the wrong word.

[oakpacific]

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

So XRP has sort of a demurrage implemented? On top of that given ripple is closed source they can inflate the XRP supply if they wanted.

Wow I rather use the federal reserve system if this is the case. Lol


Maybe demurrage is the wrong word.

They can inflate, deflate, distribute the supply in whatever way they like(e.g., give a lot to some shills and only very little to honest appliers so they can pull off a "pump and dump")  without even being found to do so, as long as they do it cautiously.

It's like a mixture of FEDs and Charles Ponzi's wildest wet dreams.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

That makes sense.  From what I can figure out (I say that because I am not really sure) the XRP is really a transaction fee.  Instead of saying "we are raising transaction fees" they can just say that XRP's have become more valuable so you should trade your Dollars, Bitcoins, silver dimes, etc. for them.  That way they are doing you a favor by selling you valuable XRP's rather than some nasty administrator who always raises fees.

You don't even need any mechanism to limit transaction spam with the ledger / accounts based system instead of a blockchain.

Use anti-DoS rules (eg, validators would refuse more than 20 transactions from the same IP per ledger).

It's just to create artificial demand for XRPs, like taxation having to be paid in your country's mandated currency, and to make OpenCoin Inc rich. Now, there's no problem with people getting rich, but when they are advertising it as a decentralized and open payment system and trying to get the bitcoin crowd to hop in ...

[oakpacific]

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

That makes sense.  From what I can figure out (I say that because I am not really sure) the XRP is really a transaction fee.  Instead of saying "we are raising transaction fees" they can just say that XRP's have become more valuable so you should trade your Dollars, Bitcoins, silver dimes, etc. for them.  That way they are doing you a favor by selling you valuable XRP's rather than some nasty administrator who always raises fees.

You don't even need any mechanism to limit transaction spam with the ledger / accounts based system instead of a blockchain.

Use anti-DoS rules (eg, validators would refuse more than 20 transactions from the same IP per ledger).

It's just to create artificial demand for XRPs, like taxation having to be paid in your country's mandated currency, and to make OpenCoin Inc rich. Now, there's no problem with people getting rich, but when they are advertising it as a decentralized and open payment system and trying to get the bitcoin crowd to hop in ...

From what I can tell Ripple is for those that do large amounts of exchanges like currency exchangers, day trades, international businesses, etc. I don't generally do those things so I don't care what they do.

I think it's exactly the opposite, for large amounts of exchanges a validator would be tempted to scam you once and get away, which would be worth the risk.

If they develop a system many people use they are supposed to get rich.

Reason why it's centralized.

[themusicgod1]

Like everything else decentralized, you only need one person to 'interface' with existing banking, somewhere on the network.  Everything else is convenience.

And by the way, if any of you need to interact with the legacy banking system, hit me up a message and we'll try to work something out if you've got credit to me.

Sure, we need something like 10 million cash USD liquidity daily please.  I'll go ahead and email you where to send the next batch every half second or so.  Thanks

Can do -- rM1oqKtfh1zgjdAgbFmaRm3btfGBX25xVo if you can make a 10M$ payment to that that would be fantastic.  Send me a message if you would like to actually do this, I'll talk to some people we'll see what we can do[but like I said -- convenience is the key -- it probably isn't useful to have to have a bottleneck of what I can smuggle to your location but, you know for that kind of coin I could probably get a heliocopter involved/etc].

[cypherdoc]

i had a direct conversation with Chris Larson after the Alt chain session.

during the session he claimed that Ripple has no counterparty risk.  the obvious thing that popped into my mind immediately was this ability for OpenCoin to print more XRP's.

so i approached him at the end and mentioned that claim and then gave him the example of how many of us feel the USD has counterparty risk in the form of inflation via the Fed.  he nodded in agreement and then i asked him why wouldn't XRP fall into that same category.

he immediately retorted that OpenCoin will not ever print anymore XRP once the code is released and that it would be hard coded that way.

i then pointed out that if that was true then the value of the remaining XRP's in circulation would certainly go up in value over time with OpenCoin having the most to gain since they held the largest share.  he nodded in agreement and said that was their business model.

knowing those facts, i should've pushed him to wall by asking the following questions but i didn't want to embarrass him too much as he seemed already very uncomfortable:

1.  if XRP's are being destroyed with every tx and there is only ever going to be the fixed supply, then what happens to Ripple when all the XRP have been destroyed?
2.  as the value of XRP gets pushed higher and higher via destruction, won't tx fees eventually become so huge as to be uneconomical for funding tx's?
3.  won't OpenCoin eventually perform a dump of their XRP holdings to cash out? (he acknowledged that)

Larson can't have it both ways.  if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail.  if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.

they are caught in a contradiction.

[smoothie]

i had a direct conversation with Chris Larson after the Alt chain session.

during the session he claimed that Ripple has no counterparty risk.  the obvious thing that popped into my mind immediately was this ability for OpenCoin to print more XRP's.

so i approached him at the end and mentioned that claim and then gave him the example of how many of us feel the USD has counterparty risk in the form of inflation via the Fed.  he nodded in agreement and then i asked him why wouldn't XRP fall into that same category.

he immediately retorted that OpenCoin will not ever print anymore XRP once the code is released and that it would be hard coded that way.

i then pointed out that if that was true then the value of the remaining XRP's in circulation would certainly go up in value over time with OpenCoin having the most to gain since they held the largest share.  he nodded in agreement and said that was their business model.

knowing those facts, i should've pushed him to wall by asking the following questions but i didn't want to embarrass him too much as he seemed already very uncomfortable:

1.  if XRP's are being destroyed with every tx and there is only ever going to be the fixed supply, then what happens to Ripple when all the XRP have been destroyed?
2.  as the value of XRP gets pushed higher and higher via destruction, won't tx fees eventually become so huge as to be uneconomical for funding tx's?
3.  won't OpenCoin eventually perform a dump of their XRP holdings to cash out? (he acknowledged that)

Larson can't have it both ways.  if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail.  if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.

they are caught in a contradiction.

Chris was obviously very uncomfortable during the panel. All I needed to know was OpenCoin Inc. had a paid booth at the conference. Something you have not seen with any other alt. ripple is a business not a decentralized payment system. Therefore centralized.

Btw the contradiction you pointed out cypher seals their fate or the fate of suckers who buy into ripple. Someone is going to get scammed one way or the other.

[SamS]

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

That makes sense.  From what I can figure out (I say that because I am not really sure) the XRP is really a transaction fee.  Instead of saying "we are raising transaction fees" they can just say that XRP's have become more valuable so you should trade your Dollars, Bitcoins, silver dimes, etc. for them.  That way they are doing you a favor by selling you valuable XRP's rather than some nasty administrator who always raises fees.

The following is from the Ripple website: https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/

Ripple Credits
ripples (XRP)

Ripple contains a virtual currency, called ripples (XRP). These are used to pay the small fee required by the network for each transaction. They can also be sent between two accounts, converted into other currencies, or spent at venues that accept them.

[kelsey]

Larson can't have it both ways.  if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail.  if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.
they are caught in a contradiction.

Not really as with a minut amount destroyed it'd take thousands of years to fail. for making pure profit they'd need to create no more, doing so would never create a greater market cap...so it'd be pointless.


however holding however billion they are holding onto as a company or private individuals should be a big concern to anyone wishing to adopt.

[Rampion]

Larson can't have it both ways.  if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail.  if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.
they are caught in a contradiction.

however holding however billion they are holding onto as a company or private individuals should be a big concern to anyone wishing to adopt.

This.

[mmeijeri]

From the Ripple FAQ:

When Ripple started there were 100 billion ripples in existence. This number is slowly decreasing because, as a security measure, each transaction destroys a tiny fraction of a ripple. Don’t worry — even with the whole world using Ripple, it will take thousands of years to destroy all the ripples. You can see the exact number of ripples at the Live Network Graph.

It's clear that cypherdoc doesn't have an open mind and is merely critically evaluating Ripple. He / she is deliberately campaigning against it.

[mmeijeri]

however holding however billion they are holding onto as a company or private individuals should be a big concern to anyone wishing to adopt.

Perhaps, but the same is true of Satoshi's stash of BTC. Besides, how do you know Satoshi isn't behind Ripple too?

[smoothie]

Larson can't have it both ways.  if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail.  if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.
they are caught in a contradiction.

Not really as with a minut amount destroyed it'd take thousands of years to fail. for making pure profit they'd need to create no more, doing so would never create a greater market cap...so it'd be pointless.


however holding however billion they are holding onto as a company or private individuals should be a big concern to anyone wishing to adopt.

Essentially premining the XRPs. Type a 1 and a bunch of zeros into the value of a variable and voila, 100 billion ripples. Lol

[smoothie]

From the Ripple FAQ:

When Ripple started there were 100 billion ripples in existence. This number is slowly decreasing because, as a security measure, each transaction destroys a tiny fraction of a ripple. Don’t worry — even with the whole world using Ripple, it will take thousands of years to destroy all the ripples. You can see the exact number of ripples at the Live Network Graph.

It's clear that cypherdoc doesn't have an open mind and is merely critically evaluating Ripple. He / she is deliberately campaigning against it.

The fact that the source is not open says they can change whatever they want. Anytime you have centralized control of a system it results in corruption. Having to trust a centrally controlled system and other humans to pay their debts via ripple IOUs is flawed. What happens if someone who has debt with a number of people dies? Or decides to never use the ripple system again?

Scam alert: people are going to lose a lot of money and value via ripple.

[misterbigg]

holding however billion they are holding onto as a company or private individuals should be a big concern to anyone wishing to adopt.

Just the opposite. I'm glad OpenCoin is holding a bunch of XRP, because if they do well then I'll do well (I own XRP as well). This aligns their interests with mine.