Topic: Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 38. (Read 45589 times)
I think we need more time to see the reactions of the reality.
That's fair enough.
Right now, as it's configured, I have about as much interest in Ripples as I have in Linden Dollars.
If things change, my interest might change.
If things change, my interest might change.
And bear in mind that if your accusations are false, you may well find yourself on the wrong end of a libel suit.
Man, what are so afraid of, tradefortress? Step back and breathe. Your crusade against ripple is bordering on religious zealotry, to the point that you're offering people money to say that "ripple is a scam"?
http://www.thebitcointrader.com/2013/05/i-was-offered-550-to-say-that-ripple-is.html
Scams are started by nobodies in their garage or basement, Open coin is being run by people who have run or been involved with established businesses in their past, like E-loan and Prosper.com. I hardly think they're going to sully their professional reputation by running some sort of cheap fly-by-night scam operation.
The vitriol spewed by the likes of you or "antiscam" (one and the same?) on the ripple forum makes me curious as to what is really at issue here. You and your buddies at ripplescam.org are threatened, that much is clear. Is your emotional connection to bitcoin so strong that the perceived threat that you see in ripple is causing you to stoop low and play social media games in your effort to stamp ripple out? Or did you get turned down for a job at Opencoin? What's the source of persistant resistance to ripple? It can't be just out of the goodness of your heart to save the masses from your perceived "scam that is ripple."
If that's the case, then there's more worrisome altcoins to rail about than ripple.
Relax and let the cryptocurrency environment sort itself out and stop spamming the forum.
http://www.thebitcointrader.com/2013/05/i-was-offered-550-to-say-that-ripple-is.html
Scams are started by nobodies in their garage or basement, Open coin is being run by people who have run or been involved with established businesses in their past, like E-loan and Prosper.com. I hardly think they're going to sully their professional reputation by running some sort of cheap fly-by-night scam operation.
The vitriol spewed by the likes of you or "antiscam" (one and the same?) on the ripple forum makes me curious as to what is really at issue here. You and your buddies at ripplescam.org are threatened, that much is clear. Is your emotional connection to bitcoin so strong that the perceived threat that you see in ripple is causing you to stoop low and play social media games in your effort to stamp ripple out? Or did you get turned down for a job at Opencoin? What's the source of persistant resistance to ripple? It can't be just out of the goodness of your heart to save the masses from your perceived "scam that is ripple."
If that's the case, then there's more worrisome altcoins to rail about than ripple.
Relax and let the cryptocurrency environment sort itself out and stop spamming the forum.
We commonly say "I bought coins on MtGox" or "I sold coins on MtGox", but that isn't what really happens. There is no movement of coins in the blockchain. Instead, MtGox changes its pointers to your account, debiting here, crediting there. MtGox runs its own proprietary version of ripple. So does Bitstamp and Btc-e. Ripple is a generic system that everyone can use, and not just for bitcoins and USD.
Question: You have 100 x $100 bills. How do you send that $10,000 to someone in seattle from new york? You can FedEx the physical paper bills in a box (send specie payment), or you can get into the banking system by getting an IOU at your bank in New York and "sending" it to seattle. Most people choose the IOU system, due to the convenience.
Governments can force exchanges underground but they cannot kill Bitcoin or prevent people exchanging Bitcoins between themselves or prevent people to send or receive Bitcoins in exchange for products and services.
Ripple will be one such system for exchanging cryptocurrencies for cash.
Quote
Governments cannot ''shutdown'' Bitcoin. But they can easily ''shutdown'' Ripple due to its centralized nature.
Only if Ripple stays centralised, which is not the plan and which would not be in their interests.
legal issues may bring the whole thing down eventually.
Why do you think that? Ripple looks more resilient to repression than Bitcoin. Governments could force exchanges underground, maybe mostly to the level of informal P2P networks of single individuals, but that would still allow exchange between cash and XRP, BTC etc.
Governments can force exchanges underground but they cannot kill Bitcoin or prevent people exchanging Bitcoins between themselves or prevent people to send or receive Bitcoins in exchange for products and services. Governments cannot ''shutdown'' Bitcoin. But they can easily ''shutdown'' Ripple due to its centralized nature.
I think it will come to collaborate and help each other ...
Despite what OpenCoin Inc try to convince you, Bitcoin is philosophically mutually exclusive to Ripple.
I think it will come to collaborate and help each other ...
Despite what OpenCoin Inc try to convince you, Bitcoin is philosophically mutually exclusive to Ripple.
I think it will come to collaborate and help each other ...
Bitcoin is what the people want. I could care less about any of the other Alt currencies. What the heck is a ripple anyway? Bitcoin is going to make a SPLASH! 
bitcoin is the king of altlitecoin of scrypt
How is this ignorant? You better make a valid argument as to why and enlighten us if you want to change opinions. I read all the mail archives and code and am first class in economics top-tier.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
I love your avatar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boOsfs903tM
legal issues may bring the whole thing down eventually.
Why do you think that? Ripple looks more resilient to repression than Bitcoin. Governments could force exchanges underground, maybe mostly to the level of informal P2P networks of single individuals, but that would still allow exchange between cash and XRP, BTC etc.
Yeah, the main problem I see with Ripple is that it's probably a lot more centralized than it appears, even ignoring the issues with XRP distribution and source availability.
AFAICT, Ripple requires that your UNL:
- Contain entities that won't cooperate to defraud you.
- Contain entities that themselves have good UNLs, and the entities in their UNLs must have good UNLs, etc.
- Form a "good network". A UNL containing just your friends wouldn't form a good network because you wouldn't be linked well-enough to the rest of Ripple. Your section of the network might get into a situation where its idea of history will never converge with the rest of the network's idea of history.
As a result, I believe that Ripple can really only be used reliably and securely if everyone has pretty much the same UNL. It's probably OK to remove or add a handful of nodes to your UNL, but at least a big portion of it probably needs to remain the same between users. So this ends up being a distributed system, but not a decentralized one. Whoever decides who's on the canonical UNL has a lot of power over the network. Also, people generally can't be "full nodes" in Ripple and participate in the consensus process because full nodes need to be online all the time and in someone's UNL.
Despite this, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ripple grow over the next few years. A lot of people think that it's decentralized and safe, and if they use the default centralized Ripple configuration it probably will be safe and stable in the short-term, and it'll be a lot cheaper to transact using Ripple than with Bitcoin. But it won't actually be as decentralized or as robust as Bitcoin, and legal issues may bring the whole thing down eventually.
AFAICT, Ripple requires that your UNL:
- Contain entities that won't cooperate to defraud you.
- Contain entities that themselves have good UNLs, and the entities in their UNLs must have good UNLs, etc.
- Form a "good network". A UNL containing just your friends wouldn't form a good network because you wouldn't be linked well-enough to the rest of Ripple. Your section of the network might get into a situation where its idea of history will never converge with the rest of the network's idea of history.
As a result, I believe that Ripple can really only be used reliably and securely if everyone has pretty much the same UNL. It's probably OK to remove or add a handful of nodes to your UNL, but at least a big portion of it probably needs to remain the same between users. So this ends up being a distributed system, but not a decentralized one. Whoever decides who's on the canonical UNL has a lot of power over the network. Also, people generally can't be "full nodes" in Ripple and participate in the consensus process because full nodes need to be online all the time and in someone's UNL.
Despite this, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ripple grow over the next few years. A lot of people think that it's decentralized and safe, and if they use the default centralized Ripple configuration it probably will be safe and stable in the short-term, and it'll be a lot cheaper to transact using Ripple than with Bitcoin. But it won't actually be as decentralized or as robust as Bitcoin, and legal issues may bring the whole thing down eventually.
It sounds quite familar....I seem to recall a thing called bank.
Oh, there's difference, banks need to operate by the law.
How is this ignorant? You better make a valid argument as to why and enlighten us if you want to change opinions. I read all the mail archives and code and am first class in economics top-tier.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
Yeah, the main problem I see with Ripple is that it's probably a lot more centralized than it appears, even ignoring the issues with XRP distribution and source availability.
AFAICT, Ripple requires that your UNL:
- Contain entities that won't cooperate to defraud you.
- Contain entities that themselves have good UNLs, and the entities in their UNLs must have good UNLs, etc.
- Form a "good network". A UNL containing just your friends wouldn't form a good network because you wouldn't be linked well-enough to the rest of Ripple. Your section of the network might get into a situation where its idea of history will never converge with the rest of the network's idea of history.
As a result, I believe that Ripple can really only be used reliably and securely if everyone has pretty much the same UNL. It's probably OK to remove or add a handful of nodes to your UNL, but at least a big portion of it probably needs to remain the same between users. So this ends up being a distributed system, but not a decentralized one. Whoever decides who's on the canonical UNL has a lot of power over the network. Also, people generally can't be "full nodes" in Ripple and participate in the consensus process because full nodes need to be online all the time and in someone's UNL.
Despite this, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ripple grow over the next few years. A lot of people think that it's decentralized and safe, and if they use the default centralized Ripple configuration it probably will be safe and stable in the short-term, and it'll be a lot cheaper to transact using Ripple than with Bitcoin. But it won't actually be as decentralized or as robust as Bitcoin, and legal issues may bring the whole thing down eventually.
AFAICT, Ripple requires that your UNL:
- Contain entities that won't cooperate to defraud you.
- Contain entities that themselves have good UNLs, and the entities in their UNLs must have good UNLs, etc.
- Form a "good network". A UNL containing just your friends wouldn't form a good network because you wouldn't be linked well-enough to the rest of Ripple. Your section of the network might get into a situation where its idea of history will never converge with the rest of the network's idea of history.
As a result, I believe that Ripple can really only be used reliably and securely if everyone has pretty much the same UNL. It's probably OK to remove or add a handful of nodes to your UNL, but at least a big portion of it probably needs to remain the same between users. So this ends up being a distributed system, but not a decentralized one. Whoever decides who's on the canonical UNL has a lot of power over the network. Also, people generally can't be "full nodes" in Ripple and participate in the consensus process because full nodes need to be online all the time and in someone's UNL.
Despite this, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ripple grow over the next few years. A lot of people think that it's decentralized and safe, and if they use the default centralized Ripple configuration it probably will be safe and stable in the short-term, and it'll be a lot cheaper to transact using Ripple than with Bitcoin. But it won't actually be as decentralized or as robust as Bitcoin, and legal issues may bring the whole thing down eventually.
All this argument is silly. Ripple and Bitcoin each have their strengths and weaknesses, and we should be spending our efforts integrating the two, like what DividendRippler has done, rather than arguing which one is better. Neither of them provide true anonymous, untraceable digital cash, and for that we need Open Transactions. So let's get busy developing a fully-integrated ecosystem between the three.
agreed.
All this argument is silly. Ripple and Bitcoin each have their strengths and weaknesses, and we should be spending our efforts integrating the two, like what DividendRippler has done, rather than arguing which one is better. Neither of them provide true anonymous, untraceable digital cash, and for that we need Open Transactions. So let's get busy developing a fully-integrated ecosystem between the three.
Jump to: