Topic: Ripple or Bitcoin - page 43. (Read 34110 times)

I doubt they expected XRP to be trading at the price that it is now as well. It's pretty amazing actually. I wonder if they have a target price in mind and they'll keep a tight grip on the money supply to control inflation.

I agree with you. If they included a POW system for people to "earn" their XRP it would just be another distraction and totally unnecessary.

What I find interesting is that bitcoin's economic design (block reward reduction, 21 million, deflationary ect) is probably eventually going to be what ends up causing bitcoin's success or failure. The technology behind bitcoin seems pretty solid at this point, so that's not so much of an issue now. But with ripple, XRP and how they choose to deal with it isn't going to be a critical factor in the success or failure of ripple. Ripple isn't about XRP. XRP is a sideshow which attracts a lot of attention but is ultimately irrelevant in the bigger picture.

Well, I am not so sure I would agree.

They could have used proof of work to distribute the XRP. The hashes wouldn't serve the same purpose as bitcoin, which is to protect the ledger. They would only serve to distribute the XRP. Once all the XRP are distributed proof of work would no longer be needed. It could have been set up on some type of time table similar to Bitcoin.

But then that leaves Ripple development in an unfunded state, having to beg for donations. It is going to be a lot easier for Ripple to gain traction with large established companies because they will be dealing with a CEO (Chris Larsen) instead of a guy living under a bridge (Amir Taaki). And we desperately need established companies not just for Ripple but Bitcoin as well. Exchanges and money transmitters are dropping like flies lately, think Liberty Reserve and Dwolla.

The challenge of producing high quality open source software (as opposed to just open source software) is figuring out how to make money to pay the bills. I think Ripple did a great job answering this question.

I think you misread what he said. I don't think he is saying that POW isn't a good way to distribute coins. He's saying that ripple's consensus system does not have any obvious way to to distribute coins in a fair manner. Which is why they've chosen the traditional method of distribution(which isn't inherently bad btw).

This is purely subjective. One could say that the XRP pre-mine is the ideal way to distribute coins because it funds the development and marketing of Ripple. Which one is "right?" I don't think there's any correct answer. Neither proof of work nor pre-mining violate the Non-aggression principle so from an ethical point of view they are both acceptable solutions.

I believe that much of the anti-Ripple sentiment comes from the manner in which the XRP are distributed (i.e. the founders and OpenCoin start with all of them). I can relate to this, we're all human after all. But once all the XRP have been distributed or sold does it matter? Ripple is still very functional without having to have your own hoard of XRP. Unlike Bitcoin you will probably have to pay a reasonable fee to create a wallet (since it needs to have XRP reserves). On the other hand you can reap a lot of benefits of Ripple without having a wallet at all thanks to the federation protocol - just open an account at a gateway. You'll need to do that anyway to get money into and out of the system. This is why I keep saying that Ripple and Bitcoin are different and complementary.

If you want to deal purely in cryptocurrency and not interact at all with the fiat world, Bitcoin could be ideal. When you need to interface with other centralized government currencies, use Ripple. When you want to use government money to buy and sell bitcoin, use both.

this is where i think you've got it wrong.

POW is the ideal way to distribute coins as it starts everyone off on a level playing field.  yes, you had to know about Bitcoin and "see" it's potential to mine early but that's the way any startup goes.  also the subsequent buildup of POW systems (miners) acts not only to distribute validators widely but also increases the security of the system orders of magnitude making a 51% attack highly unlikely or infeasible.

by handing out XRP's randomly and w/o order creates all sorts of distortions.  everyone sees this now.

I think it's too early to tell especially given the extensive testing that proof of work has received. But I'm very optimistic. Two big fundamental differences: Proof of work can also be used to distribute a currency -- there's no known good way to do that using consensus. There's no known good way to handle a 51% attack on a proof of work system.

I'm here to try to get a better grasp of weaknesses in Ripple before I make a decision on whether it will work out or not. I had to go through the same mental processes with BitCoin, and will for any new currency that captures my interest. What I find funny are these people who get defensive and think their currency is being "slandered", just because people are trying to get a grasp of the possible weaknesses in the currency. I am also very much interested in discussing the possible weaknesses in BitCoin in order make a good estimate of how much risk I am incurring by saving in it. I think many of my questions are still unanswered here as this conversation digresses into accusations and characterizations.

Anyone out there willing to take a crack at this one yet? "Lets say either Ripple or Bitcoin become the global currency of choice. (ie. the Ripple "gateway" system becomes redundant). Which one of these currencies would be more reliable/resilient? Is "consensus" of nodes an improvement over mining?

What about kakobrekla?

I think that here there are many haters with an hand, but they buying XRP with the other

I know exactly how you feel.  Especially as it relates to whether or not to allow my business to be associated with such.  As they say, all money isn't good money.   

The composition here is Ripple fanboys + realists, not "haters" and ripple pumping + realism, not "slander". Nice going with the labelwork, but it doesn't actually do anything.

The only destructive thing going on is some irresponsible idiots + some very much interested shills pumping A SCAM which will make everyone, not just the idiots and the shills, look bad to the undiscerning public. Not very much so, it's not by any means a grave concern, but to keep things clear: pumping the scam is the destructive work here.

I wish the Ripple haters would use all that energy (and even money in some cases) to encourage a Ripple competitor that isn't also a competitor to Bitcoin, say Bitcoin + Open Transactions + Bitmessage, instead of slandering Ripple. That would be a constructive contribution, in contrast with the destructive approach they are taking now.

Not really. I'm saying it's:

Ripple: Facilitating business and innovation in ways Bitcoin can't.


IMHO Bigg makes a fair point when he says: " I contribute, while all MPOE does is say bullshit " (I'm paraphrasing).


I have a sneaking suspicion TradeFortress, MPOE, and some of the major Ripple detractors may be working in Ripple's favour. Their impact on these forums is may really be a net positive for Ripple, since Katz and Co. clearly have the ability to respond to any questions or legitimate criticisms, and are open to debating Ripple's features.

As a user and entrepreneur who is still fairly new to these modern payment solutions, it's very easy for me to be supportive of Ripple. Meanwhile MPOE and his/her ilk are diminishing my like for Bitcoin ttytt.

Or maybe...just maybe...he actually knows what he's talking about.  I personally find most of his posts on Ripple to be very informative.  I've seen people in stark opposition to Ripple, present some really well thought out and compelling arguments against Ripple.  That I can respect.  So far, you seem to just be trolling as you offer nothing of substance one way or the other.  That I don't respect one bit. Now he could totally be "made out of shyt", as you claim.  That could absolutely be true...but from my eyes, you're the only one with shyt on your face, because that's all you're spewing.  

And just food for thought...it was all the attacks against Ripple, that personally lead me to Ripple.  Now, I couldn't be happier so, thanks to all of you for that.  

Well, if he really said he's the chick on the avatar he's just trolling you: MPOE is Mircea's company, as well as BitBet and Polimedia.

It would make sense, MPOE claimed she is the women on the avatar, but then it could just really be Mircea.
Nobody really cares enough either way.

But acting like you believe it makes for some possibility of interesting debates, like we have seen above.