Topic: Ripple or Bitcoin - page 30. (Read 34110 times)
Of course bitcoin, I do not think that there is any doubt.
i choose bitcoin
Could Ripple XRP replace bitcoin before it is widely accepted?
If ripple allows users to send money instantly and almost fee free, with a pretty and easy to use UI.
Plenty of money to burn on advertising and reputation building.
Business and Financial connections likely to get them accepted on large merchant sites.
Why would the average person have any interest in Bitcoin?
More important could Ripple become controlled by business or government?
I'm not suggesting any of this is fact.
Just wanna hear the opinions of people that actually know stuff.
Ripple is a very large company and has abundant capital supply from 6 different major banks. We can say that its technology and trading methods are more bitcoin. Bitcoin technology is obsolete, but it is still used by many people. perhaps because bitcoin is the first electronic currency and carries a lot of human values. So bitcoin always leads in the Crypto market. If ripple allows users to send money instantly and almost fee free, with a pretty and easy to use UI.
Plenty of money to burn on advertising and reputation building.
Business and Financial connections likely to get them accepted on large merchant sites.
Why would the average person have any interest in Bitcoin?
More important could Ripple become controlled by business or government?
I'm not suggesting any of this is fact.
Just wanna hear the opinions of people that actually know stuff.
Ripple can not be replaced Bitcoin due to Bitcoin and Ripple differ a lot in algorithm! Bitcoin has been recognized by the community and is very good value! The ripple needs to do much more for its development if it wants to keep up with Bitcoin
I'd choose a pulsation. but only in the long term. if you want to make money soon, rather than wait for a few years, then you should buy bitcoins. after all, it is bitcoins now. 1 of the most popular cryptocurrencies in the world. his course is constantly growing.
The development is still going and in my opinion Ripple will be placed side by side with bitcoins soon.
We must have trusty alternates. Ripple is a 100% premined coin. The optimal value for a 100% premined coin like this one: 1XRP at $0 maximum.
You can not premine a mine-less coin, and of course you can't mine ripple either, moreover you cant buy large shares of it. this is the real original market the pure core stuff in which we trust http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ripple/
As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
What a bunch of baloney. There is more than enough processing power to have practically any amount of financial transactions. Transfering and processing a number two account numbers and some hashes can be done million times every second on a smartphone.
The reason VISA can't is because there is a human factor involved with every transaction.
The lead dev of bitcoin is proposing a change that could allow bitcoin to scale to far more transactions per second than VISA.
I'm not clued up on the finer details but this is what I read.
Bitcoin Foundation chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.
http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/
As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
What a bunch of baloney. There is more than enough processing power to have practically any amount of financial transactions. Transfering and processing a number two account numbers and some hashes can be done million times every second on a smartphone.
The reason VISA can't is because there is a human factor involved with every transaction.
The lead dev of bitcoin is proposing a change that could allow bitcoin to scale to far more transactions per second than VISA.
As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
What a bunch of baloney. There is more than enough processing power to have practically any amount of financial transactions. Transfering and processing a number two account numbers and some hashes can be done million times every second on a smartphone.
The reason VISA can't is because there is a human factor involved with every transaction.
The lead dev of bitcoin is proposing a change that could allow bitcoin to scale to far more transactions per second than VISA.
I'm gonna say go with Bitcoin. I think it's poised for a breakout in the coming months. 
As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
What a bunch of baloney. There is more than enough processing power to have practically any amount of financial transactions. Transfering and processing a number two account numbers and some hashes can be done million times every second on a smartphone.
The reason VISA can't is because there is a human factor involved with every transaction.
Ripple is widely misunderstood.
At large, the Ripple protocol has been designed from its outset to level the playing field:
It is a concept with historical precedent:
Add in global distributed/decentralized ledgers, smart contracts, real-time settlement---and we can already begin to fill in many gaps.
I see tremendous value in the concept of individually issued currencies, and I also do not see that feature as mutually exclusive with mining---if mining tech is adapted to support that use case at a fundamental level. Mastercoin and others are beginning to lead the way. I also see value in rethinking mining itself. Hybrid systems offer a lot of potential value. Real-time settlement of individually issued currencies is a powerful concept. I do not want my livelihood beholden to a single currency.
Regarding the strategy of Ripple Labs, here is the opinion expressed by the creator of Ripple and its community vision (Ryan Fugger):
I think Ripple Labs is taking a pragmatic and effective approach, and their resultant recent major successes are relevant to the future of all cryptocurrency. As outlined in my response to the linked post, I believe a multi-phase approach will be necessary to drive ubiquitous adoption of cryptocurrencies at global scale.
I do not see Ripple and Bitcoin as mutually exclusive. I see them as complementary. I do not believe the future of cryptocurrencies will be a zero sum game. In general, I see a future of many competing currencies as the healthiest future that we can hope for. Bitcoin, Litecoin, NXT, DOGE, Ripple, Ethereum, and all the rest can have promising futures together. Multi-currency support in cryptocurrency systems designed for interoperability with other systems (cryptocurrency and beyond) will play an especially important role.
Dismissing Ripple outright is a disservice to the cryptocurrency community at large, so long as it continues to lead to a tendency of dismissing all of the underlying open source tech and concepts delivered. Adapt, fork, and improve if you are uncomfortable with fundamental components of the Ripple Labs implementation or network growth strategy. Codius, the Ripple Labs smart contract protocol, is being designed decoupled from Ripple. An engineering team of 30+ (and growing) is delivering value that the entirety of the community can benefit from, through both Codius and Ripple.
Investing in Ripple, as with any cryptocurrency, is high risk. I am not advocating you invest in Ripple. Do not invest in any cryptocurrency that you have not taken the time to thoroughly research and understand. At the moment, I am not aware of any cryptocurrency that is able to effectively scale at a technical level to meet global needs. Major technical breakthroughs are still needed to cover those needs, and all coins can innovate to drive those changes. It is a reason why strong developer support is essential. As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
We have a long way to go, together.
Nice post, very informative At large, the Ripple protocol has been designed from its outset to level the playing field:
Quote
Paying without cash and without going through a bank may seem an impossible proposition. Not so, says Ryan Fugger, the architect of Ripple, an open source bank-independent peer-to-peer payment system that is now in Beta release, meaning it's open to play with and test.
The proposal is based on the fact that all payments are made through IOUs. While this is obvious in the case of trust between individuals, it is more obscure when considering cash, which is based on trust in the government, or the bank credit, which we obtain by the bank accepting our IOU - collateral - and providing its own IOU - a positive bank balance - for us to use in payment.
The idea of a direct payment system that complements and may eventually make obsolete both bank and government IOUs is simple but it has world-changing potential. It tends to counteract a huge drain on the economy which is operated by the mechanism of interest. Since some 97 % of our money is created a a loan from a bank, it requires continual interest to be paid to its owner, the bank.
The proposal is based on the fact that all payments are made through IOUs. While this is obvious in the case of trust between individuals, it is more obscure when considering cash, which is based on trust in the government, or the bank credit, which we obtain by the bank accepting our IOU - collateral - and providing its own IOU - a positive bank balance - for us to use in payment.
The idea of a direct payment system that complements and may eventually make obsolete both bank and government IOUs is simple but it has world-changing potential. It tends to counteract a huge drain on the economy which is operated by the mechanism of interest. Since some 97 % of our money is created a a loan from a bank, it requires continual interest to be paid to its owner, the bank.
It is a concept with historical precedent:
Quote
People created their own currencies, to substitute for the collapsing money supply. They kept using checks to pay one another, but then, people’s checks began trading within communities. Here’s how Antoin Murphy, one of the few scholars to have studied these strikes, which took place in the 1970s, describes it: “a highly personalized credit system without any definite time horizon for the eventual clearance of debits and credits substituted for the existing institutionalized banking system.”
The country in question was Ireland — today, in deep crisis because of profligate banks.
So why were the Irish of yesteryear able to trade notes with one another, in lieu of credit issued by banks? Well, Ireland was curiously well situated for this kind of resilience. It was an economy full of a very special kind of institution: what I’ve termed in my book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, Value Conversations. Antoin Murphy notes in no uncertain terms that the Irish economy was characterized by intense, frequent, conversational personal contact: tight, dense, solid local knowledge circulating at high velocity within and across communities. Result? Borrowers and lenders could build solid microfoundations of trust. In other words, when you’ve been chatting with Bill every night at the local pub for twenty years, you probably know whether his note is a good bet or not (and further, just how much to discount it to earn a sustainable and fair return, that neither fleeces Bill, nor robs you). Furthermore, if you’re the publican, and you’ve been chatting with me and with Bill, then you’re even better positioned to become a de facto arbitrator of notes — a bank. And that’s exactly the role that pubs began to play.
You might say that a radically decentralized, p2p financial system spontaneously arose. Instead of letting the bankers’ strike collapse their prosperity, people decided, simply, that they could get on with the day-to-day stuff of banking themselves. In slightly more formal terms, I’d suggest that they were able to take on, at least in tiny part, five of Robert Merton and Zvi Bodie’s six standard functions of a financial system: settling payments, providing information, setting incentives, pooling resources, and transferring resources. The bankers thought even one of six might have been impossible. It’s as if the economy settled into a new dynamic equilibrium: one where emergent, unpredicted — and totally unforeseen — behavior unlocked a very different kind of financial system. It wasn’t perfect; yes, foreign currency transactions were problematic, yes, moral hazard was an issue, and perhaps my reading, having not been there myself, is frankly erroneous. It’s not a utopian picture — just a very different one from mega-banking, with a very different feel, purpose, and structure.
The country in question was Ireland — today, in deep crisis because of profligate banks.
So why were the Irish of yesteryear able to trade notes with one another, in lieu of credit issued by banks? Well, Ireland was curiously well situated for this kind of resilience. It was an economy full of a very special kind of institution: what I’ve termed in my book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, Value Conversations. Antoin Murphy notes in no uncertain terms that the Irish economy was characterized by intense, frequent, conversational personal contact: tight, dense, solid local knowledge circulating at high velocity within and across communities. Result? Borrowers and lenders could build solid microfoundations of trust. In other words, when you’ve been chatting with Bill every night at the local pub for twenty years, you probably know whether his note is a good bet or not (and further, just how much to discount it to earn a sustainable and fair return, that neither fleeces Bill, nor robs you). Furthermore, if you’re the publican, and you’ve been chatting with me and with Bill, then you’re even better positioned to become a de facto arbitrator of notes — a bank. And that’s exactly the role that pubs began to play.
You might say that a radically decentralized, p2p financial system spontaneously arose. Instead of letting the bankers’ strike collapse their prosperity, people decided, simply, that they could get on with the day-to-day stuff of banking themselves. In slightly more formal terms, I’d suggest that they were able to take on, at least in tiny part, five of Robert Merton and Zvi Bodie’s six standard functions of a financial system: settling payments, providing information, setting incentives, pooling resources, and transferring resources. The bankers thought even one of six might have been impossible. It’s as if the economy settled into a new dynamic equilibrium: one where emergent, unpredicted — and totally unforeseen — behavior unlocked a very different kind of financial system. It wasn’t perfect; yes, foreign currency transactions were problematic, yes, moral hazard was an issue, and perhaps my reading, having not been there myself, is frankly erroneous. It’s not a utopian picture — just a very different one from mega-banking, with a very different feel, purpose, and structure.
Add in global distributed/decentralized ledgers, smart contracts, real-time settlement---and we can already begin to fill in many gaps.
I see tremendous value in the concept of individually issued currencies, and I also do not see that feature as mutually exclusive with mining---if mining tech is adapted to support that use case at a fundamental level. Mastercoin and others are beginning to lead the way. I also see value in rethinking mining itself. Hybrid systems offer a lot of potential value. Real-time settlement of individually issued currencies is a powerful concept. I do not want my livelihood beholden to a single currency.
Regarding the strategy of Ripple Labs, here is the opinion expressed by the creator of Ripple and its community vision (Ryan Fugger):
Quote
I spent years working on growing pre-XRP Ripple in a grassroots fashion, and it was ultimately a barrier that people and small businesses aren't used to being credit intermediaries. I generally prefer the grassroots approach, but it makes sense to me to initially target institutions that are already acting as credit intermediaries, at least for the credit network portion of Ripple.
I think Ripple Labs is taking a pragmatic and effective approach, and their resultant recent major successes are relevant to the future of all cryptocurrency. As outlined in my response to the linked post, I believe a multi-phase approach will be necessary to drive ubiquitous adoption of cryptocurrencies at global scale.
I do not see Ripple and Bitcoin as mutually exclusive. I see them as complementary. I do not believe the future of cryptocurrencies will be a zero sum game. In general, I see a future of many competing currencies as the healthiest future that we can hope for. Bitcoin, Litecoin, NXT, DOGE, Ripple, Ethereum, and all the rest can have promising futures together. Multi-currency support in cryptocurrency systems designed for interoperability with other systems (cryptocurrency and beyond) will play an especially important role.
Dismissing Ripple outright is a disservice to the cryptocurrency community at large, so long as it continues to lead to a tendency of dismissing all of the underlying open source tech and concepts delivered. Adapt, fork, and improve if you are uncomfortable with fundamental components of the Ripple Labs implementation or network growth strategy. Codius, the Ripple Labs smart contract protocol, is being designed decoupled from Ripple. An engineering team of 30+ (and growing) is delivering value that the entirety of the community can benefit from, through both Codius and Ripple.
Investing in Ripple, as with any cryptocurrency, is high risk. I am not advocating you invest in Ripple. Do not invest in any cryptocurrency that you have not taken the time to thoroughly research and understand. At the moment, I am not aware of any cryptocurrency that is able to effectively scale at a technical level to meet global needs. Major technical breakthroughs are still needed to cover those needs, and all coins can innovate to drive those changes. It is a reason why strong developer support is essential. As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
We have a long way to go, together.
Ripple is widely misunderstood.
At large, the Ripple protocol has been designed from its outset to level the playing field:
It is a concept with historical precedent:
Add in global distributed/decentralized ledgers, smart contracts, real-time settlement---and we can already begin to fill in many gaps.
I see tremendous value in the concept of individually issued currencies, and I also do not see that feature as mutually exclusive with mining---if mining tech is adapted to support that use case at a fundamental level. Mastercoin and others are beginning to lead the way. I also see value in rethinking mining itself. Hybrid systems offer a lot of potential value. Real-time settlement of individually issued currencies is a powerful concept. I do not want my livelihood beholden to a single currency.
Regarding the strategy of Ripple Labs, here is the opinion expressed by the creator of Ripple and its community vision (Ryan Fugger):
I think Ripple Labs is taking a pragmatic and effective approach, and their resultant recent major successes are relevant to the future of all cryptocurrency. As outlined in my response to the linked post, I believe a multi-phase approach will be necessary to drive ubiquitous adoption of cryptocurrencies at global scale.
I do not see Ripple and Bitcoin as mutually exclusive. I see them as complementary. I do not believe the future of cryptocurrencies will be a zero sum game. In general, I see a future of many competing currencies as the healthiest future that we can hope for. Bitcoin, Litecoin, NXT, DOGE, Ripple, Ethereum, and all the rest can have promising futures together. Multi-currency support in cryptocurrency systems designed for interoperability with other systems (cryptocurrency and beyond) will play an especially important role.
Dismissing Ripple outright is a disservice to the cryptocurrency community at large, so long as it continues to lead to a tendency of dismissing all of the underlying open source tech and concepts delivered. Adapt, fork, and improve if you are uncomfortable with fundamental components of the Ripple Labs implementation or network growth strategy. Codius, the Ripple Labs smart contract protocol, is being designed decoupled from Ripple. An engineering team of 30+ (and growing) is delivering value that the entirety of the community can benefit from, through both Codius and Ripple.
Investing in Ripple, as with any cryptocurrency, is high risk. I am not advocating you invest in Ripple. Do not invest in any cryptocurrency that you have not taken the time to thoroughly research and understand. At the moment, I am not aware of any cryptocurrency that is able to effectively scale at a technical level to meet global needs. Major technical breakthroughs are still needed to cover those needs, and all coins can innovate to drive those changes. It is a reason why strong developer support is essential. As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
We have a long way to go, together.
At large, the Ripple protocol has been designed from its outset to level the playing field:
Quote
Paying without cash and without going through a bank may seem an impossible proposition. Not so, says Ryan Fugger, the architect of Ripple, an open source bank-independent peer-to-peer payment system that is now in Beta release, meaning it's open to play with and test.
The proposal is based on the fact that all payments are made through IOUs. While this is obvious in the case of trust between individuals, it is more obscure when considering cash, which is based on trust in the government, or the bank credit, which we obtain by the bank accepting our IOU - collateral - and providing its own IOU - a positive bank balance - for us to use in payment.
The idea of a direct payment system that complements and may eventually make obsolete both bank and government IOUs is simple but it has world-changing potential. It tends to counteract a huge drain on the economy which is operated by the mechanism of interest. Since some 97 % of our money is created a a loan from a bank, it requires continual interest to be paid to its owner, the bank.
The proposal is based on the fact that all payments are made through IOUs. While this is obvious in the case of trust between individuals, it is more obscure when considering cash, which is based on trust in the government, or the bank credit, which we obtain by the bank accepting our IOU - collateral - and providing its own IOU - a positive bank balance - for us to use in payment.
The idea of a direct payment system that complements and may eventually make obsolete both bank and government IOUs is simple but it has world-changing potential. It tends to counteract a huge drain on the economy which is operated by the mechanism of interest. Since some 97 % of our money is created a a loan from a bank, it requires continual interest to be paid to its owner, the bank.
It is a concept with historical precedent:
Quote
People created their own currencies, to substitute for the collapsing money supply. They kept using checks to pay one another, but then, people’s checks began trading within communities. Here’s how Antoin Murphy, one of the few scholars to have studied these strikes, which took place in the 1970s, describes it: “a highly personalized credit system without any definite time horizon for the eventual clearance of debits and credits substituted for the existing institutionalized banking system.”
The country in question was Ireland — today, in deep crisis because of profligate banks.
So why were the Irish of yesteryear able to trade notes with one another, in lieu of credit issued by banks? Well, Ireland was curiously well situated for this kind of resilience. It was an economy full of a very special kind of institution: what I’ve termed in my book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, Value Conversations. Antoin Murphy notes in no uncertain terms that the Irish economy was characterized by intense, frequent, conversational personal contact: tight, dense, solid local knowledge circulating at high velocity within and across communities. Result? Borrowers and lenders could build solid microfoundations of trust. In other words, when you’ve been chatting with Bill every night at the local pub for twenty years, you probably know whether his note is a good bet or not (and further, just how much to discount it to earn a sustainable and fair return, that neither fleeces Bill, nor robs you). Furthermore, if you’re the publican, and you’ve been chatting with me and with Bill, then you’re even better positioned to become a de facto arbitrator of notes — a bank. And that’s exactly the role that pubs began to play.
You might say that a radically decentralized, p2p financial system spontaneously arose. Instead of letting the bankers’ strike collapse their prosperity, people decided, simply, that they could get on with the day-to-day stuff of banking themselves. In slightly more formal terms, I’d suggest that they were able to take on, at least in tiny part, five of Robert Merton and Zvi Bodie’s six standard functions of a financial system: settling payments, providing information, setting incentives, pooling resources, and transferring resources. The bankers thought even one of six might have been impossible. It’s as if the economy settled into a new dynamic equilibrium: one where emergent, unpredicted — and totally unforeseen — behavior unlocked a very different kind of financial system. It wasn’t perfect; yes, foreign currency transactions were problematic, yes, moral hazard was an issue, and perhaps my reading, having not been there myself, is frankly erroneous. It’s not a utopian picture — just a very different one from mega-banking, with a very different feel, purpose, and structure.
The country in question was Ireland — today, in deep crisis because of profligate banks.
So why were the Irish of yesteryear able to trade notes with one another, in lieu of credit issued by banks? Well, Ireland was curiously well situated for this kind of resilience. It was an economy full of a very special kind of institution: what I’ve termed in my book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, Value Conversations. Antoin Murphy notes in no uncertain terms that the Irish economy was characterized by intense, frequent, conversational personal contact: tight, dense, solid local knowledge circulating at high velocity within and across communities. Result? Borrowers and lenders could build solid microfoundations of trust. In other words, when you’ve been chatting with Bill every night at the local pub for twenty years, you probably know whether his note is a good bet or not (and further, just how much to discount it to earn a sustainable and fair return, that neither fleeces Bill, nor robs you). Furthermore, if you’re the publican, and you’ve been chatting with me and with Bill, then you’re even better positioned to become a de facto arbitrator of notes — a bank. And that’s exactly the role that pubs began to play.
You might say that a radically decentralized, p2p financial system spontaneously arose. Instead of letting the bankers’ strike collapse their prosperity, people decided, simply, that they could get on with the day-to-day stuff of banking themselves. In slightly more formal terms, I’d suggest that they were able to take on, at least in tiny part, five of Robert Merton and Zvi Bodie’s six standard functions of a financial system: settling payments, providing information, setting incentives, pooling resources, and transferring resources. The bankers thought even one of six might have been impossible. It’s as if the economy settled into a new dynamic equilibrium: one where emergent, unpredicted — and totally unforeseen — behavior unlocked a very different kind of financial system. It wasn’t perfect; yes, foreign currency transactions were problematic, yes, moral hazard was an issue, and perhaps my reading, having not been there myself, is frankly erroneous. It’s not a utopian picture — just a very different one from mega-banking, with a very different feel, purpose, and structure.
Add in global distributed/decentralized ledgers, smart contracts, real-time settlement---and we can already begin to fill in many gaps.
I see tremendous value in the concept of individually issued currencies, and I also do not see that feature as mutually exclusive with mining---if mining tech is adapted to support that use case at a fundamental level. Mastercoin and others are beginning to lead the way. I also see value in rethinking mining itself. Hybrid systems offer a lot of potential value. Real-time settlement of individually issued currencies is a powerful concept. I do not want my livelihood beholden to a single currency.
Regarding the strategy of Ripple Labs, here is the opinion expressed by the creator of Ripple and its community vision (Ryan Fugger):
Quote
I spent years working on growing pre-XRP Ripple in a grassroots fashion, and it was ultimately a barrier that people and small businesses aren't used to being credit intermediaries. I generally prefer the grassroots approach, but it makes sense to me to initially target institutions that are already acting as credit intermediaries, at least for the credit network portion of Ripple.
I think Ripple Labs is taking a pragmatic and effective approach, and their resultant recent major successes are relevant to the future of all cryptocurrency. As outlined in my response to the linked post, I believe a multi-phase approach will be necessary to drive ubiquitous adoption of cryptocurrencies at global scale.
I do not see Ripple and Bitcoin as mutually exclusive. I see them as complementary. I do not believe the future of cryptocurrencies will be a zero sum game. In general, I see a future of many competing currencies as the healthiest future that we can hope for. Bitcoin, Litecoin, NXT, DOGE, Ripple, Ethereum, and all the rest can have promising futures together. Multi-currency support in cryptocurrency systems designed for interoperability with other systems (cryptocurrency and beyond) will play an especially important role.
Dismissing Ripple outright is a disservice to the cryptocurrency community at large, so long as it continues to lead to a tendency of dismissing all of the underlying open source tech and concepts delivered. Adapt, fork, and improve if you are uncomfortable with fundamental components of the Ripple Labs implementation or network growth strategy. Codius, the Ripple Labs smart contract protocol, is being designed decoupled from Ripple. An engineering team of 30+ (and growing) is delivering value that the entirety of the community can benefit from, through both Codius and Ripple.
Investing in Ripple, as with any cryptocurrency, is high risk. I am not advocating you invest in Ripple. Do not invest in any cryptocurrency that you have not taken the time to thoroughly research and understand. At the moment, I am not aware of any cryptocurrency that is able to effectively scale at a technical level to meet global needs. Major technical breakthroughs are still needed to cover those needs, and all coins can innovate to drive those changes. It is a reason why strong developer support is essential. As of 2010 VISA could handle a daily load of between 2,000 - 5,000 transactions per second, with a burst capacity of 24,000. IO, disk space consumption, processing overhead, as well as network communication efficiency are all in need of major innovation.
We have a long way to go, together.
ripple sucks and is scam rumor has it. that is the word on the street. i read about it little and i want to drop kick owner or whoever that bastard is
Not even with a stick I would touch that ripple stuff. Centralized crap I hope no one is falling for.
ripple sucks and is scam rumor has it. that is the word on the street. i read about it little and i want to drop kick owner or whoever that bastard is
the real issue is its not free to opt in only if you get on the UNL can you play and Ripple controls the UNL list.
Ripple doesn't control "the" UNL, because there's no such thing as "the" UNL. Every node gets to choose their own UNL.
Bitcoin obviously!
Correct me, if I'm wrong:
Ripple was developped and held (50%) by a company, wasn't it?
In this case I absolutely prefer bitcoin.
Are there some control mechanism to prevent price manipulation by their own company?
You're talking about the currency inside the Ripple payment system, often called XRP. That's really not intended to be used as a means of exchange or a store of value (at least in the near term), so it's not really fair to compare it to Bitcoin (which is).Ripple was developped and held (50%) by a company, wasn't it?
In this case I absolutely prefer bitcoin.
Are there some control mechanism to prevent price manipulation by their own company?
thats kinda semantic.
the real issue is its not free to opt in only if you get on the UNL can you play and Ripple controls the UNL list.
Correct me, if I'm wrong:
Ripple was developped and held (50%) by a company, wasn't it?
In this case I absolutely prefer bitcoin.
Are there some control mechanism to prevent price manipulation by their own company?
You're talking about the currency inside the Ripple payment system, often called XRP. That's really not intended to be used as a means of exchange or a store of value (at least in the near term), so it's not really fair to compare it to Bitcoin (which is).Ripple was developped and held (50%) by a company, wasn't it?
In this case I absolutely prefer bitcoin.
Are there some control mechanism to prevent price manipulation by their own company?
Yet funnily enough its the way the company behind Opencoin was to generate revenue (not to mention individuals within to generate a personal wealth...no?)
To carry the analogy a bit too far, the way Google might think about it is like this -- if we make a really good search engine, it will generate lots of ad revenue. So if you care about the long term, you design it to be a great search engine and judge design decisions based on that, not on their affect on revenue.
Ripple was designed to be a great payment system and to federate existing payments systems. It also has features to support social/community credit and other types of possible future economic activity. We weren't trying to build something whose primary purpose was to generate revenue for us. Those priorities are reflected in the design.
If you build something whose primary purpose is to make you money, there's a good chance nobody will ever use it. And if you try to decentralize it, it will fail because there's no shared goal to make you money.
Build something great first.
Nice rhetoric. Too bad it's all bullshit considering Ripple is a centralized premine scam intended to make Jed and its' founders incredibly wealthy. You know it's not winning over the public if they have to send their employees to write replies, knowingly that nobody in the public is going to root for them.
I'll say what maybe JoelKatz wants to say: What do you call BTC, a speculative scam mined by the few, and controlled by the capitalist investors who pump the price? Look at the facts, weigh the pros vs. cons and consider your risks...
Ripple is not a scam, founders and Jed are contractually bound by lock-up agreements, and also have distribution strategies (except for Jed). So the founders will likely distribute some of their XRP to the underbanked, like mentioned by Chris Larsen.
The point is everyone has an opportunity to invest in a stable digital currency / protocol and profit from the value that JoeKatz describes in the design of the ripple protocol. Based on risk and volatility alone, I'll take my chances with XRP any day.
That's obvious, I doubt RL sends their employees to the forum to win over the public, it seems Mr. Katz is only here educate people on ripple and btc. Ripple may or may not compete with BTC as a store of value or payment mechanism, but the ripple protocol will definitely support BTC as a currency / form of payment / store of value as ripple will with every other form of value on the planet.
This is the first and last post I will ever make on this forum
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Jump to: