Bitcoin vs centralized Coins like Ripple

[Ullaa]

.....
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.

A number of cryptocurrencies actually have burned people, either through scams, faulty tech or just lousy leadership, the centralization issue is genuine too. When a few people control too much of a project it’s simple for things to go wrong or be influenced, Bitcoin does distinguish out because of its decentralization and long track record.

It’s not perfect but it’s been lot more stable compared to other alts, PoW has its drawbacks like energy use but it’s undoubtedly more battle tested than PoS in terms of security

Still I wouldn’t claim all altcoins are rubbish. Some are striving to solve real problems but absolutely being extra careful and avoiding hype is crucial.

[Obim34]

Yes, for now just 58 billion in market circulation. XRP has a total supply of 100 billion which is held by the developers. What is their mechanism to manage price in the long run, burning mechanism where only 0.00001 XRP will be used up as transaction fee automatically burnt in the process. It takes 1,000,000 transactions to burn 1 XRP out of a total supply of 100 billion.

How long will it take to burn 1 billion of the tokens to create enough scarcity? Within a decade from now, there is a possibility of Bitcoin hitting $1 million before XRP making it above $10-$100.

Changing the supply is not too difficult, developers will be able to reduce the supply quickly in many ways such as buying back and burning, or changing the algorithm to increase the burning rate...Like BNB has a supply of 200 million, and they have burned over 60 million in just the last 8 years, and the goal is to bring the supply to 100 million. Even CZ can make BNB supply even more scarce but the problem is even if it is scarcer, it still cannot compare to bitcoin. Because after all, they are centralized coins that cannot guarantee security, privacy, and they can increase their supply in the future if they want...All of this makes them incomparable to bitcoin.

This is just your thought on what the developers have in mind, they may not be thinking about things like this since they already have their burning system, like i stated earlier 0.00001 XRP burnt per transaction, before adding this to their system means they thought about it over and over, regardless Bitcoin keeps it narrative, everything was made right from the beginning with our total circulation to be 21 million and no Bitcoin can be mined again.

[coolcoinz]

The way I see it, XRP is a shitcoin that takes advantage of the fact that it's one of the oldest shitcoins out there and still kicking.

Why is it a shitcoin? Mainly because some of the XTP was locked from the start and belonged to the Ripple Foundation so this coin was "premined" which is usually seen as sign of bad intentions.
I remember 10 years ago where new coins were being launched and people saw a premine amount, or that the code allows for devs to change the supply without any consensus, that coin was laughed at and usually considered worse category.

Also, XRP founded an anti-bitcoin campaign, which is an obvious backstab by Ripple, so I will never support these people and tell people to stay away from this coin.

[BtcAnalyst1]

The OP obviously know the truth that Bitcoin and Ripple are not supposed to be compared yet he went ahead and created this post and that makes me to ask, what exactly is the basis for this post? Bitcoin is the pioneer and a decentralized coin whereas Ripple is centralized and even regarded as a shitcoin by the OP. Sincerely,  there is no basis for comparing Bitcoin to Ripple unless the OP is looking at the surrounding XRP.

Actually, there are no basis for comparing Bitcoin with Xrp, both are on different blockchain networks, and its very obvious that Bitcoin drivers the entire market, just like you said, Bitcoin remains the pioneer of the Cryptocurrency ecosystem and it is fully a decentralized blockchain network.
In addition, Xrp has been generally considered as a centralized blockchain network, as a matter of facts, more than 65% of Xrp token is own by the Ripple team.

[justdimin]

Altcoins are worse than penny stocks by their centralization and premined coins or thin-air minted coins or tokens. They are too easily for creation so founders and core developer team can easily abandon their projects and create new ones. This basic trait of altcoins makes them are very sensitive to die anytime.

Top altcoins are like penny stocks but non-top altcoins are like dead coins, and it's only matter of time when shitcoins die.

Yeah, penny stocks are pretty terrible too, so I am not sure which one is true, but yeah alts are terrible. So many tokens with terrible centralization, made up tokens, worthelss rewards and many other bad results. We should focus on how to make money and that is not a way of doing it, you should focus on making money only based on how to get a better result by investing into something better.

We can't make this work, it's just not possible and for that reason we should not be getting a bad deal out of this. If you do, then you are going to get a greater return, and would be focusing on how we can make some income from it. If we invest top ranked ones, then alts are good too, but if you invest int smaller and newer ones, they are terrible.

[Abiky]

Centralized is bad that's why Bitcoin was created, then years later Ripple is a centralized company with a centralized blockchain was created to bring us back to centralization.

Ripple fans don't want to admit a root cause of Bitcoin creation and existence that are to change the world from centralization to decentralization, and to bring more freedom, privacy to people on Earth.

Faster and cheaper in a coin price as well as transaction fee don't mean too much with people who care about anonymity and privacy.

Ripple is even not in this comparison, it is not a Proof of Work blockchain.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

XRP is even worse than many centralized "shitcoins". It doesn't have an incentivization mechanism for validators. Without any kind of reward for securing the network, the XRP Ledger would be extremely-vulnerable against external attacks. I mean, who's going to voluntarily run a validator node for XRP? On top of that, Ripple controls the UNL (Unique Node List) which is a list of trusted validators accepted by the network. If you want to run your own and become a part of the network, you're going to need approval from Ripple. Or at least, get your node inscribed on that list.

XRP fanboys won't give a damn about this, so they will keep buying no matter what. Their demise will come soon. It won't be long before XRP fades away into oblivion. At least we know Bitcoin will survive. And that's what matters.

[coyhasmon]

XRP is even worse than many centralized "shitcoins". It doesn't have an incentivization mechanism for validators. Without any kind of reward for securing the network, the XRP Ledger would be extremely-vulnerable against external attacks. I mean, who's going to voluntarily run a validator node for XRP? On top of that, Ripple controls the UNL (Unique Node List) which is a list of trusted validators accepted by the network. If you want to run your own and become a part of the network, you're going to need approval from Ripple. Or at least, get your node inscribed on that list.

The USD is a better and more decentralized cryptocurrency than XRP. That's the level of the joke that it is.

XRP fanboys won't give a damn about this, so they will keep buying no matter what. Their demise will come soon. It won't be long before XRP fades away into oblivion. At least we know Bitcoin will survive. And that's what matters.

XRP has already failed, no matter what bagholders tell you. Do not look at the USD chart, look at XRP/BTC and you shall see how much of a failure it is.

[AmoreJaz]

The OP obviously know the truth that Bitcoin and Ripple are not supposed to be compared yet he went ahead and created this post and that makes me to ask, what exactly is the basis for this post? Bitcoin is the pioneer and a decentralized coin whereas Ripple is centralized and even regarded as a shitcoin by the OP. Sincerely,  there is no basis for comparing Bitcoin to Ripple unless the OP is looking at the surrounding XRP.

Actually, there are no basis for comparing Bitcoin with Xrp, both are on different blockchain networks, and its very obvious that Bitcoin drivers the entire market, just like you said, Bitcoin remains the pioneer of the Cryptocurrency ecosystem and it is fully a decentralized blockchain network.
In addition, Xrp has been generally considered as a centralized blockchain network, as a matter of facts, more than 65% of Xrp token is own by the Ripple team.

As we can't compare these 2 networks, what crypto users can do is take advantage of the features of these 2 different networks. If you want cheaper fee, you can opt for XRP. But when it comes to long-term investment, I would go for BTC. XRP has its share of history regarding market instability. So I would say, if you are holding it, much better to keep up with this market as you are not very sure about it stability.

[Gost ms]

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.

Yes, you are absolutely right, it is never right to compare altcoins with Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is the king of all coins. I will not say that all altcoins in the market are bad. There are many good coins in the market whose value can increase in the future. But there are some coins because of which all the coins in the market get a bad name. When all these coins are launched in the market, some people launch coins among them and many people buy them in the market after seeing this. Again, many big people market them so that everyone sees and buys coins. Before investing in all these coins, do a very good research and then invest. I would say that you should always refrain from investing in all these coins.

Again, to do this, for example, you can invest 95% of the amount of money you would invest with your discretionary income in Bitcoin and the remaining 5% in altcoins. Long-term investment in Bitcoin is much less risky and your chances of making a profit are much higher.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Long-term investment in Bitcoin is much less risky and your chances of making a profit are much higher.

Is this true? Because as far as I know, the reason people choose to invest in atlcoin instead of bitcoin is because they think it is too expensive and no longer brings big profits. So they are willing to take bigger risks by investing in altcoins with the expectation of making big profits and getting rich just like the early bitcoin investors did.


Also, I believe that everything has its price, no asset or investment is both safe and can bring great profits, bitcoin is no exception. High profit, high risk and vice versa.


Investing in bitcoin will keep us safer but I don't think it will give better returns than altcoins these days, IMO.

[Synchronice]

What I learnt from my small ongoing crypto journey, is that, Bitcoin is like the holy roman empire and the rest of the altcoins are small countries. The only difference is that unlikely roman empire, Bitcoin isn't as advanced as some altcoins but it's the most decentralized one.
Everything that happens around Bitcoin only proves that it's going to be the number 1 digital asset in the world. It might not be the most popular currency for payment (but there is a chance it will be if we change some rules or improve LN and make transactions cheaper) but it will definitely be the most popular asset. This gives Bitcoin a huge benefit. It might not be the most profitable cryptocurrency to hold today but it will be the most stably growing and strongest currency.

[Abiky]

What I learnt from my small ongoing crypto journey, is that, Bitcoin is like the holy roman empire and the rest of the altcoins are small countries. The only difference is that unlikely roman empire, Bitcoin isn't as advanced as some altcoins but it's the most decentralized one.
Everything that happens around Bitcoin only proves that it's going to be the number 1 digital asset in the world. It might not be the most popular currency for payment (but there is a chance it will be if we change some rules or improve LN and make transactions cheaper) but it will definitely be the most popular asset. This gives Bitcoin a huge benefit. It might not be the most profitable cryptocurrency to hold today but it will be the most stably growing and strongest currency.

If Bitcoin is like the "Roman Empire", does that mean it's destined to fail (collapse) in the future? Well, nothing lasts forever. But I don't see this happening anytime soon. Bitcoin is already too big to fail. And it will stay that way as long as decentralization is preserved. The number of "Wall Street" giants accumulating a large portion of the circulating supply should be a cause for alarm to many. Let's just hope they don't control most of the network hashrate (miners) and nodes, or Bitcoin will become completely centralized.

Right now, decentralization is what makes Bitcoin different among the rest of the pack. It's no wonder why Ripple's XRP has been unable to take over the "King". XRP may be fast and cheap, but it can be easily shut down by the government or the company itself (because of the way it was designed). To the unaware, Ripple, Inc. controls most of the XRP in circulation. Why bother buying and holding a coin that can disappear in an instant? Same as other centralized "shitcoins" which are often overhyped (BNB, Solana, etc). Do your own research and you'll see why altcoins will always be inferior to Bitcoin no matter what shiny-new features they have. You'll thank me later.

[reagansimms]

Everyone who is directly involved in trading and investing in Crypto assets certainly understands that the market dynamics between one coin and another are very different, especially regarding the movement and risks of Bitcoin with Altcoin.

~~~
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.

Here traders and investors can assess (Bitcoin) as a less risky investment option and its level of resilience is also stronger due to its status as the only fully decentralized asset. Meanwhile, altcoins are not completely decentralized because their founders hold most of the coins, the market capitalization value of Altcoins is also much smaller than Bitcoin so they can be easily manipulated.

The striking differences between the two make it easy for investors to choose coins that are worth keeping in their wallets for the long term. Most people look at Altcoins as a way to get more Bitcoin in the future because they are more likely to experience a big price spike, but regardless of how they multiply the value of the investment, new Altcoins should be avoided because they are usually very risky, especially when their market capitalization is low.

[aoluain]

@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?

Sincerely I usually found such comparison pointless as I don't think any coin should be equated or compared with Bitcoin knowing too well that they aren't the same neither where they created same day.
Of course monero and dash coin, Zcash aren't centralized coin, hence they are decentralized or privacy coins.

The comparison is a bit pointless all right. Everyone who is into Bitcoin is well
versed in the Bitcoin v Altcoin debate. If you are a Bitcoiner you dont necessarily
need to know what Ripple does - its centralised, end of story, end of debate, end of interest.

For some people centralised v decentralised doesnt mean anything, if they can
make a profit from $hitcoins they will regardless of the integrity of the creators,
or the lack of utility or even with utility used by banks or governments.

[Synchronice]

What I learnt from my small ongoing crypto journey, is that, Bitcoin is like the holy roman empire and the rest of the altcoins are small countries. The only difference is that unlikely roman empire, Bitcoin isn't as advanced as some altcoins but it's the most decentralized one.
Everything that happens around Bitcoin only proves that it's going to be the number 1 digital asset in the world. It might not be the most popular currency for payment (but there is a chance it will be if we change some rules or improve LN and make transactions cheaper) but it will definitely be the most popular asset. This gives Bitcoin a huge benefit. It might not be the most profitable cryptocurrency to hold today but it will be the most stably growing and strongest currency.

If Bitcoin is like the "Roman Empire", does that mean it's destined to fail (collapse) in the future? Well, nothing lasts forever. But I don't see this happening anytime soon. Bitcoin is already too big to fail. And it will stay that way as long as decentralization is preserved. The number of "Wall Street" giants accumulating a large portion of the circulating supply should be a cause for alarm to many. Let's just hope they don't control most of the network hashrate (miners) and nodes, or Bitcoin will become completely centralized.

Right now, decentralization is what makes Bitcoin different among the rest of the pack. It's no wonder why Ripple's XRP has been unable to take over the "King". XRP may be fast and cheap, but it can be easily shut down by the government or the company itself (because of the way it was designed). To the unaware, Ripple, Inc. controls most of the XRP in circulation. Why bother buying and holding a coin that can disappear in an instant? Same as other centralized "shitcoins" which are often overhyped (BNB, Solana, etc). Do your own research and you'll see why altcoins will always be inferior to Bitcoin no matter what shiny-new features they have. You'll thank me later.

The Holy Roman Empire officially lasted from 962 to 1806, so, you know... I'm sure that Bitcoin will last a long time and I also don't see its collapse happening anytime soon, that's why I compared it to Roman Empire. The biggest benefit of Bitcoin is that it's truly decentralized and we don't know the creator of it, which further strengthens its decentralization but Bitcoin's negative side is that developers are a bit conservative instead of being innovative. It's both good and bad, I simply hope that when the right time comes, they'll really do something to make Bitcoin an usable currency for P2P payments and ordinals spam will not severely affect transaction fees.

[Dogedegen]

The Holy Roman Empire officially lasted from 962 to 1806, so, you know... I'm sure that Bitcoin will last a long time and I also don't see its collapse happening anytime soon, that's why I compared it to Roman Empire. The biggest benefit of Bitcoin is that it's truly decentralized and we don't know the creator of it, which further strengthens its decentralization but Bitcoin's negative side is that developers are a bit conservative instead of being innovative. It's both good and bad, I simply hope that when the right time comes, they'll really do something to make Bitcoin an usable currency for P2P payments and ordinals spam will not severely affect transaction fees.

I agree with your post to some degree, but there are errors in it. The decentralization of Bitcoin has nothing to do with whether we know who created it or not. Even if we found out who created it tomorrow, nothing would change. It is about the governance system over deploying code and the node consensus. No other project has anything like this, they are very centralized. In some, the blockchain is centralized like Ripple and the control is centralized behind a foundation or company. In others, the blockchain is a bit more decentralized but there is again a centralized entity that is guiding everything.

[Abiky]

The Holy Roman Empire officially lasted from 962 to 1806, so, you know... I'm sure that Bitcoin will last a long time and I also don't see its collapse happening anytime soon, that's why I compared it to Roman Empire. The biggest benefit of Bitcoin is that it's truly decentralized and we don't know the creator of it, which further strengthens its decentralization but Bitcoin's negative side is that developers are a bit conservative instead of being innovative. It's both good and bad, I simply hope that when the right time comes, they'll really do something to make Bitcoin an usable currency for P2P payments and ordinals spam will not severely affect transaction fees.

Of course. The Roman Empire lasted centuries due to its strong economic and military might. The same can happen with Bitcoin if it stays decentralized and censorship-resistant. It might last well beyond 2140 (which is the time when the last BTC will be mined). As with everything, nothing lasts forever. Eventually, a superior tech will render Bitcoin obsolete, leading the beloved cryptocurrency towards its demise. It will be comparable to the collapse of the Roman Empire in Ancient times.

If BTC becomes history, what can you say about centralized "shitcoins" like XRP? Those will be the first ones to fade away into oblivion. I hope people learn the importance of decentralization before it's too late. Just my two sats.

[nemesis_incarnate]

I agree with your post to some degree, but there are errors in it. The decentralization of Bitcoin has nothing to do with whether we know who created it or not. Even if we found out who created it tomorrow, nothing would change. It is about the governance system over deploying code and the node consensus. No other project has anything like this, they are very centralized. In some, the blockchain is centralized like Ripple and the control is centralized behind a foundation or company. In others, the blockchain is a bit more decentralized but there is again a centralized entity that is guiding everything.

If anything, what would change is that Satoshi would be in danger due to his persona becoming known to people.

BTC is on its own, and it doesn't need anyone to go off and continue pushing forward (I mean figures like Trump, Saylor, Satoshi )

[Synchronice]

I agree with your post to some degree, but there are errors in it. The decentralization of Bitcoin has nothing to do with whether we know who created it or not. Even if we found out who created it tomorrow, nothing would change. It is about the governance system over deploying code and the node consensus. No other project has anything like this, they are very centralized. In some, the blockchain is centralized like Ripple and the control is centralized behind a foundation or company. In others, the blockchain is a bit more decentralized but there is again a centralized entity that is guiding everything.

Decentralized means that there is no single central power who controls it. Satoshi is the creator of Bitcoin and he has mined and owns one million Bitcoin. If Satoshi appears tomorrow, I think that everything can be changed because in theory, Satoshi is the creator of Bitcoin and one could argue that it's his property. On the other hand, since he is the creator, I think that for many people it means that he can be the centralization for Bitcoin, cause he is the creator. I think that Bitcoin is more decentralized because he doesn't exist. Also, if he appears, since he has access to one million Bitcoin, he can change many things.

Of course. The Roman Empire lasted centuries due to its strong economic and military might. The same can happen with Bitcoin if it stays decentralized and censorship-resistant. It might last well beyond 2140 (which is the time when the last BTC will be mined). As with everything, nothing lasts forever. Eventually, a superior tech will render Bitcoin obsolete, leading the beloved cryptocurrency towards its demise. It will be comparable to the collapse of the Roman Empire in Ancient times.

If BTC becomes history, what can you say about centralized "shitcoins" like XRP? Those will be the first ones to fade away into oblivion. I hope people learn the importance of decentralization before it's too late. Just my two sats.

Bitcoin's success will depend on demand/supply and its developers. It can't remain too conservative for a long time or a superior tech might take it over but things aren't that simple. For example, I'd say that Monero is superior to Bitcoin in many terms but it's still ranked low in CMC.

XRP is here today but will be gone tomorrow. XRP has some pros and cons, for example it's very fast and cheap, so many people will use it for transactions but long-term, I have no idea about it, I'm not a fan of it and I still don't understand why people use it instead of other cryptocurrencies.

[ChicksX]

It's a clear contrast: decentralization versus centralization. While Bitcoin champions true decentralization, altcoins often reveal the inherent flaws of centralized control. Ultimately, the existence of altcoins, with their higher risks and frequent failures, serves to highlight the undeniable superiority of Bitcoin. They can offer speculative gains and niche functions like privacy or small transactions, but they also serve as a stark reminder of why deep research is crucial. For advanced users, understanding these risks is key when dabbling in the altcoin space.