Topic: Ripple is in major trouble - page 3. (Read 25437 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

^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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

RIP ple

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

Once again:

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?

couple of indian banks have joined ripple, for their tech.

ripple is low now , but will come back up, it will take time., but it will be back up and more than ever., i am holding ripple.,

You only have to ask two questions:

1) Is Ripple's consensus algorithm capable of operating in a decentralized way?

2) Is it plausible that someone could have accidentally developed such an algorithm without intending it to be used this way?

Satoshi's biggest breakthrough was finding the first way to solve the double spend problem without a central authority (proof of work). Our first breakthrough was finding the second way (a distributed agreement protocol that doesn't require a leader or complete prior agreement on the participants).

Proof comes from actions because actions count more than words....why did they keep 60% (or more) of the XRP if its not centralisation?

Seems to me they are talking about decentralisation now, when before they were (through their actions) wanting to be centralised..owning 60%+ of the XRP



This is interesting...thanks for this....

So, the predecessor in his intention was to be decentralised, but then they went centralised in their actions by owning majority of the XRP, and now they are talking about being decentralised again due to investor pressure and being called out.....

I would say actions count more than words...if its to be decentralised....like all the other cryptos out there, then why keep the majority of the XRP to yourself

Also, for the XRP that they 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? So in which case, the valuation of XRP is unjustified

"The predecessor to the Ripple payment protocol, Ripplepay, was first developed in 2004 by Ryan Fugger,[18][19] a web developer in Vancouver, British Columbia.[20] Fugger conceived of the idea after working on a local exchange trading system in Vancouver, and his intent was to create a monetary system that was decentralized and could effectively allow individuals and communities to create their own money. Fugger's first iteration of this system, RipplePay.com,[21] debuted in 2005 as a financial service to provide secure payment options to members of an online community via a global network.[20][22]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)