Bitcoin vs centralized Coins like Ripple

[Phu Juck]

Altcoins have proven to be unreliable again and again due to a various incidents. Yes, Altcoins can also bring us some gains but what if risks are much higher compared to advantages? And for Alt coins, risks have proven to be much higher compared to advantages
As a bagholder of such coins, we have a big risk to suffer a loss. Previously, Altcoins have caused lossed from:
-   Getting hacked
-   Turning out to be a scam
-   Project failed (Terra Luna)
-   Being bad tech and lacking to be competitive against Bitcoin
-   Developers abandoning a project
-   Failing to register at SEC
-   Selling out to big investors
-   Team members dumping coins masssively
-   High inflation compared to Bitcoin
We can list much more reasons here but it’s a list of famous reasons already. And it’s a growing list, too.


A big issue: many Altcoins are centralized

It’s very obvious, why Altcoins are a big danger: a lack of decentralisation – or too much centralization, how we would view it.
Being centralized is making such coins very flawed and prone to hacks. Also, founders can be dishonest much more easily in a centralized project.

Decentralisation is key to make a coin less prone to hacks and Bitcoin, for example, is decentralized. And Bitcoin has proven to be very reliable.


PoW vs. PoS

Quite contrary to PoS, PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found.
For example, PoS can be abused by rich stakers. Many PoS projects have a so-called pre-mining of coins allocated to the team and the team can abuse such pre-mined coins to gain influence about project decisions.
A large pre-mine is making a project centralized in many ways and devs can gain much influence by staking a large amount of PoS coins. PoW is not having such issues.

A similar problem is called “nothing at stake”, where attackers benefit from no cost to stake ETH or similar PoS coins. Should a fork occur, no matter if the fork is a friendly, accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite history and reverse transactions, it’s a given strategy for any staker to stake on every chain. By doing so, he will get a reward no matter which fork will succeed and he will have no additional cost to do so.
In PoW, such a problem is not happening because PoW always means work (spending electricity) needs to be done. A cost occurs for every miner and he can’t mine on multiple chains because mining of a different chain means an extra cost.


SEC needs to crush Ripple

Ripple is a centralized shitcoin operated by fraudsters. It was confirmed multiple times, where Ripple’s CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, was involved in fraudulent shilling techniques.

Ripple is clearly a centralized project and SEC needs to take action against Ripple. Hopefully, SEC will win against Ripple because Ripple has committed lots of fraud already.


How can we avoid making a loss?

For us, it’s only possible to stay away from such shady shitcoins.
Many centralized Altcoins are a big danger.
Please, don’t buy such shitcoins.
We have much better coins, like Bitcoin.

[Ambatman]

I don't believe Bitcoin and Xrp should be used in same sentence.
And yeah you right about the risk of shitcoins and the fact they can give quick gains (a mirage)

many Altcoins are centralized

Almost all altcoins are centralized even the ones that claim they are decentralized like Ethereum.

PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found.

Yeah I agree on the fact of the security of POW, but that's with Bitcoin
Bitcoin cash and litecoin are POW but are not secured due to their low hashrate.

SEC needs to crush Ripple

Not after they funded the presidents campaign
and have been added to their songs called strategic reserve

[Rikafip]

@OP What's the point of comparing Bitcoin to centralized shitcoins such as Ripple? Bitcoins is in its own category and shoulnd't even be even emntioned together with Ripple.

All altcoins are centralized even the ones that claim they are decentralized like Ethereum.

What about Monero?

[coupable]

With the exception of Bitcoin and a few other cryptocurrencies, all remaining cryptocurrencies are centralized. Centralization can be in the decision-making power, as each cryptocurrency has a specific person, team, or entity that controls its operation and updates, even if the network is decentralized. Alternatively, the network can be entirely centralized, with a central authority managing and controlling the network. In either case, centralized cryptocurrencies like Ripple are no different from banks in the banking system, and they are gaining popularity as such, as users perceive their assets to be more secure.

Comparing Ripple to Bitcoin is completely unrealistic, as each has its own protocol, concept, and even audience. If we were to look for Ripple-like versions, we would find many, and dozens could be launched. However, if we were looking for an alternative to Bitcoin, that would be almost impossible.

[avikz]

Many altcoins are created with different purposes. I am not sure why only Ripple is being compared? In reality, altcoins shouldn't be compared with Bitcoin at all. There are multiple reasons alongside centralization. Also I am not against altcoins. There are many benefits altcoins provide.

Bitcoin is more like pioneer in this market and enjoys the first mover advantage. But altcoins are also needed, especially coins like Monero. In this world of surveillance, privacy coins are really beneficial.

[Dunamisx]

Altcoins have proven to be unreliable again and again due to a various incidents. Yes, Altcoins can also bring us some gains but what if risks are much higher compared to advantages? And for Alt coins, risks have proven to be much higher compared to advantages
As a bagholder of such coins, we have a big risk to suffer a loss.

All these are known with many of the altcoins available in the crypto markets, you can check on the way we have newly launched coins everyday, how many of these are productive and how many were not, when we make this comparison, we are going to see how much risk we all have probably got into, which we managed to escape and the ones we couldn't afford to escape from.

Previously, Altcoins have caused lossed from:
-   Getting hacked
-   Turning out to be a scam
-   Project failed (Terra Luna)
-   Being bad tech and lacking to be competitive against Bitcoin
-   Developers abandoning a project
-   Failing to register at SEC
-   Selling out to big investors
-   Team members dumping coins masssively
-   High inflation compared to Bitcoin
We can list much more reasons here but it’s a list of famous reasons already. And it’s a growing list, too.


A big issue: many Altcoins are centralized

Bitcoin is the answer when it comes to cryptocurrency, any other thing is just a risk on over unnecessary demands, love of money and ignorance that makes people value them even than bitcoin which serves the reason to try on cryptocurrency.

[Mia Chloe]

Quite contrary to PoS, PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found.
For example, PoS can be abused by rich stakers. Many PoS projects have a so-called pre-mining of coins allocated to the team and the team can abuse such pre-mined coins to gain influence about project decisions.

Based on a lot of different quantities out there bitcoin is quite unique ranging from its proof of work mechanism to decentralization. One thing I've come to understand is the fact that no matter how important and efficient decentralization is over centralization centralization will still exist and you just can't defy the fact that altcoins are there will continue to be created under a centralized system.

Let's weigh the odds in fact, what other cryptocurrency aside from bitcoin and probably monero was created without a primary drive to make profit off investors?

[death69]

The real conversation should be between sovereignty and servitude. Centralized coins aren’t just bad investments. They are financial weapons used by people that enjoy controlling you. Look at the trends, look at the mechanisms, look at the intentions behind these projects.

They argue, "altcoins can bring gains." You can win a lot of money gambling, too, until the house decides otherwise. The pattern is usually the same: hyped debut, early insider sell-off, community delusions, finally collapse. When will it happen? Not if, but when. Because a centralized system is not designed for you. It is designed to make use of you. The moment a single entity can manipulate supply, halt transactions, or “comply with regulations,” you’re not in crypto, you’re in corporate finance 2.0.

PoS vs. PoW is the illusion of choice. From Day 1 PoS hands the keys to the richest. PoW requires actual work, actual energy, actual expenses, not digital permission slips generated from nowhere. Stakers rule PoS and you’re expecting fairness? Each PoS network becomes a shadow monarchy. Though not flawless, Bitcoin at least does not demand you to bow.

You have already lost the game if you want a regulator like SEC to save you from a decentralized financial system. Why do individuals continue to be victims of centralized lies? Security, convenience, speed, empty promises, repeated in cycles, and yet, here we are once more. The issue isn’t just that these projects exist but rather it’s that people still believe in them.

[NeuroticFish]

All altcoins are centralized even the ones that claim they are decentralized like Ethereum.

What about Monero?

Afaik many (or all?) big centralized exchanges don't list Monero.
Also Monero price is a small fraction of what it was (compared to Bitcoin) in the better days.
And this makes Monero unknown or unattractive for newcomers.

Imho (de)centralization is secondary in many people's mind. First it has to be profitable.

[Ambatman]

What about Monero?

Lol she escaped me.

Afaik many (or all?) big centralized exchanges don't list Monero.
Also Monero price is a small fraction of what it was (compared to Bitcoin) in the better days.
And this makes Monero unknown or unattractive for newcomers.

Imho (de)centralization is secondary in many people's mind. First it has to be profitable.

most exchange has it only as a future option for trading.
The need for quick profit is the reason the hype of Memecoins is still ongoing
And utility coin like monero are fought against by the government ( can't blame them) 
Decentralization shows its beauty in the long-run.
And not many know about monero except one is searching for ways to keep their funds private
Newbie wouldn't even consider it.

[cr1776]

Those are exactly the point, but many people aren't aware of the difference.  Many people think that it doesn't matter and that "all crypto is the same" but then you see a lot of these meme coins and centralized junk without any real security, awful development practices etc. being used to fleece people and you have to wonder.  They need to ask where is the value proposition for almost every other alt?  And the answer is, there isn't one.

[Jazzterbit]

Bitcoin cannot be compared to any other crypto project, Bitcoin was the first and will remain the most decentralized one. No fraud by developers, no network security issues. For me, I only use the utility that altcoins have, buying them only to speculate and leverage my capital to then buy Bitcoin with some of the trade profits.

[Stablexcoin]

Bitcoin cannot be compared to any other crypto project, Bitcoin was the first and will remain the most decentralized one. No fraud by developers, no network security issues. For me, I only use the utility that altcoins have, buying them only to speculate and leverage my capital to then buy Bitcoin with some of the trade profits.

The cause of comparing Bitcoin to Ripple is provocative, the only similarity is that they are both digital assets (Ripple-liability). You hardly see an altcoin created with a motive of aiding legit transactions, the lack of utility when building altcoins has collapsed the sanity of every cryptocurrency that is not Bitcoin. While some don't take trust in shitcoins occupying the market, there are insensitive ones ready to trade their earned money into an absolute mess, having experienced the fall of many altcoins, gives me the right motivation to keep Bitcoin ahead of my gain.

[Jazzterbit]

The cause of comparing Bitcoin to Ripple is provocative, the only similarity is that they are both digital assets (Ripple-liability). You hardly see an altcoin created with a motive of aiding legit transactions, the lack of utility when building altcoins has collapsed the sanity of every cryptocurrency that is not Bitcoin. While some don't take trust in shitcoins occupying the market, there are insensitive ones ready to trade their earned money into an absolute mess, having experienced the fall of many altcoins, gives me the right motivation to keep Bitcoin ahead of my gain.

If someone understands what Bitcoin is and what it was created for, everyone will go to Bitcoin. In fact, we need altcoins, not only to leverage capital, but to see how much worse all altcoins are than Bitcoin. In the end, we need altcoins to make people realize the true superiority of Bitcoin.

[Text]

I think it’s worth recognising that not all altcoins are created equal. There are some projects innovating in ways Bitcoin wasn’t designed to like DeFi, gaming ecosystems and smart contracts. Ethereum despite being PoS now still powers a huge part of the crypto space.

For me the key takeaway is doing deep research before touching any altcoin. Bitcoin’s reliability is unmatched but innovation outside Bitcoin isn’t automatically a scam. The real trick is sorting genuine projects from cash grabs and that’s easier said than done!

[headingnorth]

Like every other shitcoin XRP is disguised as some kind of technological or financial innovation
when in reality it is one of the biggest scams in existence.

99% of XRP is owned by Wall Street insiders and whales who are constantly manipulating the price.
I still have no clue what it is even good for other than being a giant Ponzi scheme pump and dump.

Remember when mortgage-backed securities was touted by Wall Street as the greatest financial
innovation ever created? But turned out to be one of the biggest financial frauds in history that caused the 2008 financial collapse?
Investors lost hundreds of billions of dollars and taxpayers were forced to pay almost a trillion dollars to bail out the banks that perpetrated the fraud.

Shitcoins are the new mortgage-backed securities. You know Wall Street they always love a good scam.



 

[boyptc]

Please, don’t buy such shitcoins.

Let these people join the royal rumble of shitcoins. They will find themselves regretting that they have spent their profit from Bitcoin just for them to lose it to these altcoins that they think will bring them more profit.

Everyone needs to learn through their own experience and soon, they'll be the ones to advocate to invest only what they can afford to lose with these altcoins.

If they don't like, stick to BTC.

We have much better coins, like Bitcoin.

We have the best and that's through Bitcoin.

[Yaunfitda]

Bitcoin cannot be compared to any other crypto project, Bitcoin was the first and will remain the most decentralized one. No fraud by developers, no network security issues. For me, I only use the utility that altcoins have, buying them only to speculate and leverage my capital to then buy Bitcoin with some of the trade profits.

That's what we call prime mover in the market, and it's uptime is 99.99%. As for coins like Ripple, it's obvious that this is a banker's crypto, and as far as I can remember they have this technology called RippleNet,

RippleNet utilizes blockchain technology to provide financial institutions around the world the ability to move funds around, intending to build a unified global payments system, as there isn’t any sort of global payments system in traditional finance.

https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/ripplenet-the-decentralized-network-of-banks

But I do think that it has failed with this system though, as I believed that Bitcoin can still be used and as global payment or remittances as well as it is borderless. So I do not think that we can even have Bitcoin and Ripple in the same breath or sentence here.

[Darker45]

In a way, you're comparing decentralization and centralization. They're total opposites. The difference is crystal clear. There seems to be no point of confusion.

However, whether we admit it or not, sometimes there's also money in altcoins, shitcoins even. There are also risks, of course. So, if you dabble in altcoins, make sure you understand those risks. For me, to play with altcoins means you aren't a newbie anymore; you're more or less advanced already.

Also, certain altcoins have roles, too. Some are good for small transactions. Some are good for privacy. Bitcoin isn't the perfect coin, after all.

[Iranus]

Also, certain altcoins have roles, too. Some are good for small transactions. Some are good for privacy. Bitcoin isn't the perfect coin, after all.

It can be said that bitcoin is the most trusted crypto asset that we can use to store our assets because it gives us complete control over our assets. But that doesn't mean altcoins are completely useless and Bitcoin is absolutely perfect.

When it comes to the payment aspect, stablecoins or many other altcoins offer a better experience with cheap transaction fees and relatively fast times. Meanwhile XMR can also ensure our privacy as well as bitcoin. As for returns, this depends largely on the investor's knowledge, not just on the type of asset. Ignorant people will also lose money investing in bitcoin while knowledgeable and experienced people will lose money. They can also profit from altcoins.

In short, bitcoin is not perfect and not all altcoins are scams or useless.