Topic: Ripple vs Bitcoin - page 5. (Read 13380 times)

Exactly. Its not a competitor to bitcoin. Ripple is different in many ways and plays a different role. Ripple is currency agnostic, what means that you can use it to trade whatever you want. For bitcoiners, for example, where many tx right now happens off-blockchain, based on trust relationships with exchanges and payment processors, ripple is a good option because is puts sellers and buyers from different exchanges in the same place. Bitstamp is a ripple gateway, so you can withdraw BTC or USD to your ripple wallet and from there, place orders to buy from other entities (individuals or companies), like Justcoin or Kraken.
If you don't like cryptos, you can use ripple to trade FIAT currencies, Gold, dymes, Forever Stamps, etc.

Ripple brings a decentralised discovering and trading system for whatever people think has value, no reason to hate it.

People who might hate ripple are entrepreneurs who are over committed to a "there must be only one" philosophy, very similar to actual bankers philosophy.

1. Some distant relative of Ripple that absolutely doesn't resemble Ripple of today was around before.  But the architect of the modern Ripple "Jed McCaleb" didn't start writing code until 2011, long after bitcoin started and he has stated himself that he wanted Ripple to be what Bitcoin wasn't.  From Wikipedia, "This led to the development of a new Ripple system in 2011 by Jed McCaleb. It was designed to eliminate Bitcoin's reliance on centralized exchanges, use less electricity than Bitcoin, and perform transactions much more quickly than Bitcoin."  So yes, Ripple as we know it came after Bitcoin and was a response to it. 

2. Without the work that Ripple Labs has done, there would be 0 Ripple!  Oh yeah, and by the way, who owns most of the Ripple?  That is a pretty big deal.  Usually if somebody owns more than half of the money, they also hold the keys.  I am sure Ripple Labs is doing more.  I am just guessing they are monitoring the network and trying to secure it.  I am also just guessing to they are working and testing new versions of code that will later be released with their stamp of approval.   

3.  Bitcoin was the first generation cryptocurrency using the blockchain.  There are lots of other first generation coins.  The 1.0 and 2.0 doesn't refer to version release numbers, it refers to generations of technology.  Since Ripple was not a clone of Bitcoin but was redesigned from the ground up to be a completely different platform (yes, it is a platform) that is more robust, handles more processes, and is quicker and easier, it represents a generational shift in between the first generation platforms.  So, yes it is a second generation platform but instead of writing "second generational platform", it is much easier to say "2.0".  There are many others including CounterParty, MasterCoin, Bitshares, and NXT.  Ethereum will at least be a 2.0 and maybe even a 3.0 depending on how a person looks at it.  By the way, "3.0" symbolizes for "third generation platform". 

I didn't see the question , what is the question

OMG! How did he die? Or maybe you mean they are using their own names now and are working atomically on Bitcoin and its derivatives. Parallel projects don't hurt Bitcoin. Their failures make Bitcoin look stronger. Many of their new ideas can still be incorporated into Bitcoin.

Ripple has a very low transaction rate at the moment and very few gateways and validators compared to Bitcoin. It's too soon to tell which would be faster on equal footing. Normal purchases are reasonably assured with zero confirmations.

Electrophobia?


That depends on what you are using Bitcoin for. Coordinating an attack on the ledger and on Stratum would be very difficult, so you wouldn't need a blockchain to scrub.


That's not stopping Colored Coin, Mastercoin, and Counterparty from developing layers over Bitcoin. Bitcoin is growing organically. A baby cheetah does not run 60 mph. Bitcoin is capable of outprocessing every other centralized payment system when the block size limit is increased.


Bitcoin doesn't need to replace every face to face transaction, but even if it did, compared to other payment systems, it is cheap. Typical transaction fees tend to be 0.1 to 0.3 mBTC. It's possible for such an exception as 0.8 mBTC, but wallet management with coin control will mitigate these costs when smarter wallets are created.


They said the same thing about the internet in the mid '90s. There is no such thing as bad publicity.


Credit unions take care of their community and care about their members. They will adapt to what best servos their membership. But I presume you mean central banks and investment banks. Their services will no longer be required. Crowd funding is the future. There are plenty of jobs for bank employees in the food service industry.

Motivating development is a double edge sword. Financial incentives create observational bias due to the strong emotional nature of those invested. That's why I advocate a focus on Bitcoin in order to share resources and gain from the greater adoption rather than early adoption speculation. Bitcoin has been growing exponentially and with each year it gains more momentum.


Naming conventions tend to be organic. In my opinion, the most significant quantity of bitcoins is the minimal dust unit of 5300 Satoshis (plus transaction fee) which should be the base unit for now. They will probably be the base units of Colored Coins.

https://ripple.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6343

I see nothing temporary about this.  Show me where the project is going to continue.

Satoshi is gone for over 3 years now (he was one of the very few anonymous core devs) and developer numbers seem to grow horizontally (everyone is creating their own forks left and right), not so much vertically (developing "deeper" into the system) unfortunately. This is a bit off-topic though...

Well, Satoshi for one. Cryptocurrency developers are growing geometrically. Who knows who will be the next coding superstar? Privacy is an important subject to many of them.

Actually you're an alt account noob.

Mining has become increasingly centralized and exchanges are centralized.

Yeah but the bitcoin core developers do not seem to be mostly anonymous.

Who 'controls' TCP/IP?  Protocols are not 'controlled'.  If you speak the protocol to a node on the network, the network will listen to you, and you become part of it.  Ripple is not really that democratic, it is more consensus-based.  This might be a little hard to wrap your head around, but it can work.

Ripple is centralized....

Bitcoin is not centralized....

Bitcoin is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000^100000000000 times better than Ripple.

Yes, anyone can run rippled and be a validator. There might be some stirup because currently a lot of people by default have their validators in their config files and probably didn't change that, but that's all. It's like freenet going down back in the day when Bitcoin was bootstrapped via IRC - you'd have to add IPs manally to connect to the swarm again, then it works again. All mining pools in the US going down at once would probably cause a longer outage on Bitcoin than RL disappearing from Ripple.

So if Ripple Labs is shut down, the network will go on just fine and all transactions will be accounted for in the ledger?

It doesn't matter where Bitcoin core developers are if they stay anonymous.

How do any core bitcoin developers left in the US intend to comply with government sanctions?

Similar to "sanctioning" the Bitcoin foundation there is not a lot to "sanction" at Ripple Labs to begin with... the network can and will go on, no matter what RL does.

I guess they would just follow whatever sanction hits them, though I don't see it having any effect on Ripple itself.

3) They can make XRP worthless and distribute it to every human being on earth once the short term gains from XRP have been realized to them.  You can't do that with bitcoin.

1) Ripple predates bitcoin
2) *Ripple Labs* is trying to get the big business and banks behind it -- bu tremember Ripple Labs is approximately 0% of the network.  Some of the rest of the network have given up on it.  Some of the rest of the network is working to get big business and banks behind it.  Some of the network is trying to make things work in house, between friends or in other situations that have nothing to do with big business.   And guess what?  The latter two categories outweigh ripple labs' efforts by several orders of magnitude.   Like Bitcoin, Ripple is not a business.  It's a collection of communities and businesses.  It's basically a very small economy.  That's like saying "Guatemala is trying to get big business and banks to invest"....sure it's probably true, that the government of Guatamala does these things but this ignores the vast majority of effort and projects undergone in that economy.  "A major mover with the right backing" cannot outmove a billion chinese people realizing that Ripple is useful to them in organizing their lives without government.  That's where we're trying to go.

3) Stop calling them 2.0 platforms.  Bitcoin 1.0 isn't released, and there will, someday be a Bitcoin 2.0, and these platforms are not that.  This is abuse of version numbers for political reasons.
 

While CFG was not a very good final outcome for sure, and you are absolutely correct to point it out as something that didn't go well...

1) They did produce valid results -- computing cycles were, in fact used for good.  This isn't a 'failure' just not as much as a success as we both might like.
2) It's unclear who 'they' is.  If 'they' means *the entire ripple network* then you're completely off your rocker.  A great deal of successful transactions have occurred, although nothing close to the amount that the bitcoin network has allowed, but still a huge amount of benefits of trade.  I have personally done quite well, and have accomplished projects I would have thought impossible without it.  

Good outcomes have come out of ripple -- we just need more of them.