Topic: ClosedCoin: Why is OC's Ripple Closed-Source? - page 3. (Read 2710 times)
They don't want someone to make Payple without the 50 billion Payples going to OpenCoin Inc for them to pay their developers ridiculous bonuses while reducing everyone else's wealth with currency debasement.
What is the justification for OpenCoin's secrecy in the development of their Ripple implementation? OC is supposed to have superior dev support compared to Bitcoin, yet they're afraid of competition?
It looks like they're rather fond of a version where they get to control where the money goes (with "input" from the community), and they hope to keep it closed long enough that it has too much momentum to fork by the time they release the source (if ever). That way they keep control by keeping half the market cap and deciding how to distribute the other half. Is this not totally against the spirit of open-source? Am I missing something?
EDIT: Note this wouldn't make it a scam, since no one is being tricked into buying XRP from OpenCoin, but it does make it seem like the giveaway-half-and-keep-half "distribution" scheme is to be interpreted as, "Make us filthy rich and we'll bootstrap Ripple into viability." I'm not even sure this is a bad idea: it may be that this really is the fastest way, but I doubt it. It seems like an attempt to ride on Bitcoin's success, but it looks like one of the core reasons for Bitcoin's success has gone unnoticed: people knew they could trust it, or didn't have to trust it.
It looks like they're rather fond of a version where they get to control where the money goes (with "input" from the community), and they hope to keep it closed long enough that it has too much momentum to fork by the time they release the source (if ever). That way they keep control by keeping half the market cap and deciding how to distribute the other half. Is this not totally against the spirit of open-source? Am I missing something?
EDIT: Note this wouldn't make it a scam, since no one is being tricked into buying XRP from OpenCoin, but it does make it seem like the giveaway-half-and-keep-half "distribution" scheme is to be interpreted as, "Make us filthy rich and we'll bootstrap Ripple into viability." I'm not even sure this is a bad idea: it may be that this really is the fastest way, but I doubt it. It seems like an attempt to ride on Bitcoin's success, but it looks like one of the core reasons for Bitcoin's success has gone unnoticed: people knew they could trust it, or didn't have to trust it.
Jump to: