Topic: Ripple is in major trouble - page 6. (Read 25437 times)

as opposed to... ? you also described bitcoin.

what price manipulation? are you referring to the rise/falls of the market which you might perceive to be "drastic"? any/every market in this world is also manipulated to some degree. ripple is doing everything within compliance to the industry they're working with (finance). your problem is comparing them to something that is entirely different. markets are rigged, not necessarily the company themselves (in this case). i say this because you don't understand how much compliance is needed within finance. to say they're a scam, is to overlook every rule they need to follow to even operate as a company. do you think they'd have partnerships/customers they have if they were a "scam"? please jump off your crypto high horse and GTFO ➡️

ı thınk rıpple ıs one of the bıggest scam. that prıze manupılatıon ıs not normal. some guys earnıng mıllıons of dolar from rıpple and may be bıllıons of dolar. they are tellıng banks wıll use rıpple . banks can use only tech of rıpple not the coın. they dont want that kınd of prıze manupulatıon they dont want to send money by rıpple. ımagıne bank ıs sendıng 1000 dolar as 100000 rıpple after translactıon ıt becomes 500 dolar because of market

This is quite an interesting reply so thanks for this and taking the time to answer......

Settlement then appears to be a complex thing, because the whole financial system is complex and not as simple as it sounds...settlement also appears then to be a mathematical issue

So what you're saying is using an R3 token with different links to fiat doesnt actually work because there's still a settlement issue, and a liquidity issue, based on the way the mathematics of the transactions work. If I transferred dollars out on a valueless token, it creates a minus on one side which still needs to be filled with something.

Banks using their own token across different fiat pairs (and multiple tokens for different fiat pairs) would also actually take more liquidity than just using an XRP token for all fiat pairs, which has (or will have) the necessary liquidity already, to actually transfer "real value" in terms of being able to fill the void when a minus or plus is created on either side of a transaction

I think if what you're saying is right, it means even if banks used their own R3 token, it would only work if it had enough liquidity and enough people were on board. And by that, I mean not just banks on board, but other financial institutions, intermedaries etc

So, that would tell me that XRP is still alive..unless im missing something

I agree that banks might not jump into XRP without regulation of the whole industry...all exchanges that trade XRP will have to be regulated etc

Ripple is, as Ripple themselves happily state, a solution for banks to exchange things with each other. 
Bravo.
Problem is, in the 21st century, seven billion humans are now starting to realise that we can exchange value (in other words, socially-agreed-to consensus, much like a US Dollar exemplifies) and trade with each other directly, peer to peer, without needing a bank or government in the middle.
Ripple hoping to fuel the continued health of the historic banking model into the 21st century is like a grower of hay hoping to fuel the horse industry after Henry Ford starts selling the Model T Ford.
Email killed stamps and envelopes and the postal authority.  Blockchain crypto currencies will kill banks.
Ripple's destiny is pinned to banks.
Does Ripple have an assured future?
Twenty, forty, fifty years from now, humans will send cryptocoins to each other over a blockchain as our way of keeping track of whom deserves what.
Why do I need a bank for that?

---

Same, same, but different.
Ethereum is a full blockchain.  It is an immutable historical record in that it is a chain of linked (inter-dependent) proofs (mathematical calculations in the form of hashes) that cannot be easily undone (spoofed, impersonated, recalculated in a corrupt way).  Each current change in our balances (e.g. you send coins to me) requires a transaction that then is evidenced (the nodes reach consensus again) after a bunch of hashing calc's are performed by nodes so as to agree to a proposed update to this inter-linked historic chain of crypto calc's.  The participating nodes constantly re-compute this blockchain so as to arrive at certainty that they can 'more safely' agree to a new consensus about this chain, and this forms then the new consensus that you rely on when you look there.  The trust is because of the amount of maths performed by the peer nodes.
Ripple is a consensus ledger.  It updates an ongoing ledger of any changes, e.g. add some coins to my account entry, subtract some from yours.  There is no blockchain with crypto calculated proofs chained to each other in intricate crypto fashion that requires huge amounts of mathematics to compute from scratch.  Instead, in Ripple the maths and CPU cycles are used for the work of just updating that shared ledger (recalculating this consensus ledger as each change happens to this central ledger, when you send coins to me).  In Ripple you are invited to trust the latest ledger you are offered, there wasn't a huge bunch of block hashing crypto calc's performed (as per the blockchain, ethereum, bitcoin model) that you can now derive a sense of safety from.
At a practical level, in Ripple you as a peer client don't need to download a blockchain if you want to verify the proof of a historic or recent transaction;  instead you trust that the current round of consensus calc's (the current ledger) is a correct up-to-date reflection that has the correct current account balances for us all.  In Ethereum you can inspect/re-verify  (re-calculate for yourself, from scratch) the whole chain for any transaction anytime you need to.

---

Quote from: PoorAudiophile on June 01, 2017, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: williamuk on May 31, 2017, 01:03:40 PM

Quote from: illaslli on May 30, 2017, 09:18:44 PM

Banks were never going to use the ripple currency they were always only interested in the blockchain. Using a speculative asset for transactions makes zero sense to a risk averse bank. The reality is that ripple is a speculative asset and has no real use other than minimal amounts to prevent spam attacks on the network.

Apologies if this is a newbie question but isn't Ethereum very similar to ripple? Ethereum is the technology/network adopted by some banks and corporations but Ether, the currency, is not?

I'm also new to this forum.

I find a lot of sense to your question, it seems nobody has an answer.

The question you may have also been asking is, why do banks seem to like Ripple more than, say, bitcoin or ethereum?
Given the way that Ripple is just a constantly updated consensus ledger, this echoes the way that banks work internally:  banks don't care where each dollar bill came into existence in the distant past (was this stash of dollar bills once used in a cocaine deal?  Was this stack of bills used in human slave trafficking?  Did this stash of bills come from Bernie Madoff?), banks only want to know the current state of the ledger.  So a blockchain is, potentially, an embarrrassment to a bank:  ideally they don't want for you to be able to self-calculate from their blockchain where all those dollar bills came from.
The pernicious side of me also suspects that banks want the ability to manipuate the consensus ledger 'after-the-fact', should the heat get too strong again, one day in the future:  "explain to me, all you banks, how you managed to lose all our money, again, a la GFC?  Show me your historic blockchain ledger so I can self-calculate where you sent all those funds....."

I'm also new to this forum.

I find a lot of sense to your question, it seems nobody has an answer.

I see far too many problems with Ripple.

For one thing they want XRP to work with "Big Banks"
But i have said all along they won't be buying XRP premined coins.
In an unregulated scam coin scene.

As much as projects like Ripple want to exclude themselves from the scene.. they can't.
It's still a fucking Altcoin !
A shady ass sketchy premined / ICO bullshit one to boot !

Are banks willing to integrate into a coin system that is unregulated ?
Nope.
This screams risk to them.

Let me put it this way.. during the housing market crash there was bail-out's.
Who is going to bail-out Ripple if it's needed one day ?
You think trillions will flow from the US govt to Ripple inc's scammy inept hands ?
And if it's not possible to bail them out ...then it's a risk.
A financial risk for banks.

Why do they need to buy XRP from bag holders ?
When they have so many other options available.
Are you guys forgetting what is already setup + being used right now ?

How is some crypto premined / centralized shit going to beat Interact eTransfer for example ?
I can send someone money ultra fast.. almost instantly.
It costs 50 cents and then i click a link in my email.. done.

Jeez Joel put the Kool-Aid down and get some fresh air.. you are brain washed !
The rest of the morons here are stupid dreamers.. naive to the reality of it all.

No, that doesn't work. Eventually you wind up with a big positive number on one side and a big negative number someplace else. Then the guy with the big positive number needs to wire out money on a domestic payment system or some other rail, and he doesn't have any money in that other payment system.

That doesn't actually settle. It just tracks debt. The entity that owes the money eventually has to settle the debt with some movement of actual value.

I don't see how that would work. Say I'm the only bank in the US that uses the R3 token. I have a billion of the R3 token with a value of one billion dollars US. Now one of my customers wants to make an ACH payment. What do I do?

Or say the US payment hub has way more R3 tokens than the Japan payment hub. Now what happens when people in the US payment hub want to move their dollars out of the payment hub? Where does it get the dollars from to cover?

You can use this as a single-currency payment system and as a way to net out opposite flows. But it still leaves you with a settlement problem. The case for a crypto-currency for global settlement is very strong. Of course, what fraction of that market XRP will be able to get is an open question, and it's Ripple's (the company) major focus.

For a coin you guys really want to see bubble, it's very resilient 

Yes of course I mean the numbers will change with respect to each other

E.g today they may be:

1 x R3 = $0.25
1 X R3 = £0.20

Tomorrow they might be:

1 X R3 = $0.21
1 X R3 = £0.22


When it comes to fiat, value isn't a real physical thing. Its just an arbitrary concept based on what people believe is true. It is based on consensus and expectations. Perhaps a better definition of what you mean by value might help, because value isnt this concrete thing you're saying.

To move so called "value", all you have to do is put a minus on the sending side and a plus on the receiving side..that's all there is to it.

If I want to send $10k from India to USA, its a 10k debit in India and a 10k credit in USA.

However you want to track that (using a token) doesnt mean you have to buy the token as well in order to "settle"


I think there might be confusion as to what we mean by value. Value is based on consensus and expectations and isnt fixed in stone. Especially when it comes to fiat. If all global banks make an agreement that they will use R3 token (pegged at whatever rate, which varies as mentioned above), then that serves as the means of settlement as well.

I could use R3 token to do the same thing as what you propose, without their being any sellable value of itself, outside its immediate function of tracking who is owed what


I see...it may come down to the way the proposition is positioned at the end of the day. Because positioning is of course important. I dont see banks being dumb though and if they have an R3 option sitting there (where they dont have to pay to buy the token, and there is no volatility from open market prices) then that can change things and compete with XRP effectively

That's not possible. The various international currencies change value with respect to each other. While these changes are typically small, so are the costs and profits associated with payments.

They already have this. They just do it for every fiat currency. The problem is that it doesn't actually move value. So it requires a separation between payment and settlement. The problem we're solving is the actual movement of value.

Because only a token that can be bought and sold has actual value and therefore can serve as an actual means of settlement. Imagine, for example, a European banking hub that needs to settle with an Indian banking hub. Market makers in India might well be willing to swap Rupees for XRP if they can use those Rupees to pick up Euros for cheap or use them to fund their own extraterritorial payments.

For sure banks will do these kinds of things, but I think XRP is well-positioned to compete with them. In particular, XRP is well-positioned to bridge these jurisdiction-specific and currency-specific domestic payment schemes.

You would have one token only - say R3 token which has a fixed rate to each fiat currency.

Examples:

1 x R3 = $0.25
1 x R3 = £0.20

The same way that 1 x XRP currently equals $0.226

The difference though is that R3 isnt a sellable token on any open market exchange or outside a banking system. Its purely an agreement between the banks to keep track of who is sending what and who is receiving what.

Nobody has to "pay" anything to buy the token itself, yet it can still transfer liquidity across "islands"

There would be "value" for lack of a better word in the token because it's pegged to a fiat amount, but its not sellable outside its immediate function.

This is the ideal way to save banks money, plus reduces volatility by stopping outsiders manipulating the price/supply etc.

Why the bank should have to pay for a token that the bank itself has made doesn't make sense. If the banks all agree to use a middle token then that will be that...no money has to be involved in "buying" the token.

What ripple is doing with XRP is selling an open market token to the banks..but the banks dont need to use an open market one...surely they can use a closed-doors one? Why does the token that banks use have to be open market?

Which is where stuff like R3 and ripple being open source (+ other techs) makes the xrp offer less attractive

Apologies if this is a newbie question but isn't Ethereum very similar to ripple? Ethereum is the technology/network adopted by some banks and corporations but Ether, the currency, is not?

A little reality check

I have a small bag of RIPPLE and lately there is a lot of bad press about it even on POLONIEX trollbox so I am also wondering, do I sell it at a loss or do I hold in case it has a revival? I hate selling coins or token at a loss but a bit of sound advice will help.

I don't understand what you're suggesting. If the token has no dollar value, what purpose does it serve? Do you mean it merely keeps track of who owes what to whom? If so, how do you settle those debts?

And when you say "peg that to fiat", do you mean to have one such token for each fiat currency? If so, how do you provide cross-currency liquidity? Or do you mean to peg one token to more than one fiat currency? How do you do that?

I think what you might be missing is that the main issue is moving actual value between islands of liquidity. How would a valueless token move value between, say, Europe and India?

The kind of system you're talking about (if I understand you correctly) is great for domestic payments and very similar to what many countries currently use. It doesn't move value though, so it doesn't help much with the problem Ripple is targeting.

The guy is making sense with the technical criticism.
I wonder if Joel will address it directly.

Myself I veer towards the meat & potatoes of it all..

I have issues with the ideology for starters.
And the handling has been sketchy too.
Which has been brought up then ignored.

Has Ripple Inc been honest & transparent and accountable?

They know it is this forum that made them yet have no none but Joel slinging poor excuses?

Want a list of bullshit stunts Ripple Inc has been behind?

This is the money post and what it all boils down to in the end

Can banks go it alone and get the liquidity themselves to make their own ripple-like blockchain system work?

Or can XRP gain enough liquidity (through crypto markets etc) to make banks want to use it?

Its almost like a chicken and egg problem. It makes XRP somewhat dependant on liquidity from crypto investors...many of which don't want a centralised system...which is why crypto investors invest so heavily in tech's like bitcoin etc as it is

It seems your assuming that XRP has its own source of real liquidity beyond crypto investors too, perhaps getting banks to buy the XRP tokens.... But if the XRP tokens come at a high price, it incentives the banks to group together and make their own, cheaper system.

Another important thing: Could it be that the banks don't need to have a real liquidity amount in their ripple-like system to begin with? They could just make up an arbitrary token in cyber space, with no actual sellable value in dollars/fiat. And then fix that at certain rates to fiat..and then use that.

So, liquidity doesnt have to be an issue at all. Liquidity isnt required because the token for inter-bank payments can just be fixed to fiat amounts to keep things simple, and with no dollar re-sell value. Banks can just use a fake token and peg it to fiat and use that for inter-bank and cross-border transfers. Who says the token has to have any value? Your making a huge huge assumption there.....

It obviously saves the bank money if the token has NO value, instead of having to fork out and deal with a volatile token price on the open market

So....it seems like Ripple is trying to sell a concept to crypto investors that doesn't necessarily have to be the way for banks. Not to mention that crypto investors dont like centralised stuff. The nonsense that miners make things centralised is false. The open market determines the price of tokens and not the miners. Whereas by XRP keeping control of a huge chunk of the supply of XRP, they can manipulate the open market at will.

There has to be a clearer roadmap shown for the XRP concept that can convince crypto investors why a bank will want to use it. Because tokens (like XRP) for inter-bank payments dont need to have any value. You can just make the value up if the consortium of banks are in agreement.

-----

Last thing, as for banks using the quickest and easiest way, it would seem to me that the quickest and easiest way would be to bypass the liquidity issue altogether and peg cyber tokens (with no dollar value) to fiat. And then use that. Why does the cyber token need to have any money value whatsoever? Why does the XRP have to have any monetary value? It doesn't.

Banks can just as easily make their own tokens (with no dollar value) and peg that to fiat. Which is what groups like R3 could very easily do

------

I wont deny that ripple has a great team and can get things done..and it has a proven track record and there's so many VC firms investing in it, that they clearly saw a lot of light in the idea.

And btw, just as full disclosure, I did make some money from XRP so I have made money out of it, but seems ripple doesn't have to be the $100bn+ market cap beast that people initially thought it would be. It can have a place in the market for sure, but there's still huge questions and uncertainty when questions like above are asked

So...clarity there would be super helpful

And you and the Ripple employee here?
I see the same shit talking frauds here defending bad..
I was last here telling both of you that you are full of shit..

All you guys do is play dumb and fuck around..
Because it pads your wallet.
.. Not mine.

I last simply pointed out how everything that comes out of Joel's mouth is waffling Ripple damage control bullshit.

What does it matter he just says?

It matters when millions of dollars are at stake and the players in control are provably deceitful.
Being heavily associated with GOX and then pretending you had no idea big problems were happening is not gonna fly.

It doesn't matter what people think of me.
The same idiots are here spewing BS.
Read it for yourself.. Don't take my word for it.

Banks were never going to use the ripple currency they were always only interested in the blockchain. Using a speculative asset for transactions makes zero sense to a risk averse bank. The reality is that ripple is a speculative asset and has no real use other than minimal amounts to prevent spam attacks on the network.

This guy sounds legit. I guess I'll get out now.