Topic: Why Ripple™ is against everything Bitcoin - page 7. (Read 45634 times)

The fact that the source is not open says they can change whatever they want. Anytime you have centralized control of a system it results in corruption. Having to trust a centrally controlled system and other humans to pay their debts via ripple IOUs is flawed. What happens if someone who has debt with a number of people dies? Or decides to never use the ripple system again?

Scam alert: people are going to lose a lot of money and value via ripple.

Essentially premining the XRPs. Type a 1 and a bunch of zeros into the value of a variable and voila, 100 billion ripples. Lol

Perhaps, but the same is true of Satoshi's stash of BTC. Besides, how do you know Satoshi isn't behind Ripple too?

From the Ripple FAQ:


It's clear that cypherdoc doesn't have an open mind and is merely critically evaluating Ripple. He / she is deliberately campaigning against it.

This.

Not really as with a minut amount destroyed it'd take thousands of years to fail. for making pure profit they'd need to create no more, doing so would never create a greater market cap...so it'd be pointless.


however holding however billion they are holding onto as a company or private individuals should be a big concern to anyone wishing to adopt.

The following is from the Ripple website: https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/

Chris was obviously very uncomfortable during the panel. All I needed to know was OpenCoin Inc. had a paid booth at the conference. Something you have not seen with any other alt. ripple is a business not a decentralized payment system. Therefore centralized.

Btw the contradiction you pointed out cypher seals their fate or the fate of suckers who buy into ripple. Someone is going to get scammed one way or the other.

i had a direct conversation with Chris Larson after the Alt chain session.

during the session he claimed that Ripple has no counterparty risk.  the obvious thing that popped into my mind immediately was this ability for OpenCoin to print more XRP's.

so i approached him at the end and mentioned that claim and then gave him the example of how many of us feel the USD has counterparty risk in the form of inflation via the Fed.  he nodded in agreement and then i asked him why wouldn't XRP fall into that same category.

he immediately retorted that OpenCoin will not ever print anymore XRP once the code is released and that it would be hard coded that way.

i then pointed out that if that was true then the value of the remaining XRP's in circulation would certainly go up in value over time with OpenCoin having the most to gain since they held the largest share.  he nodded in agreement and said that was their business model.

knowing those facts, i should've pushed him to wall by asking the following questions but i didn't want to embarrass him too much as he seemed already very uncomfortable:

1.  if XRP's are being destroyed with every tx and there is only ever going to be the fixed supply, then what happens to Ripple when all the XRP have been destroyed?
2.  as the value of XRP gets pushed higher and higher via destruction, won't tx fees eventually become so huge as to be uneconomical for funding tx's?
3.  won't OpenCoin eventually perform a dump of their XRP holdings to cash out? (he acknowledged that)

Larson can't have it both ways.  if he allows XRP's to eventually all be destroyed, the system will fail.  if he changes the rules and allows more XRP's to be printed then effectively he is no better than the Fed.

they are caught in a contradiction.

Can do -- rM1oqKtfh1zgjdAgbFmaRm3btfGBX25xVo if you can make a 10M$ payment to that that would be fantastic.  Send me a message if you would like to actually do this, I'll talk to some people we'll see what we can do[but like I said -- convenience is the key -- it probably isn't useful to have to have a bottleneck of what I can smuggle to your location but, you know for that kind of coin I could probably get a heliocopter involved/etc].

I think it's exactly the opposite, for large amounts of exchanges a validator would be tempted to scam you once and get away, which would be worth the risk.



Reason why it's centralized.

You don't even need any mechanism to limit transaction spam with the ledger / accounts based system instead of a blockchain.

Use anti-DoS rules (eg, validators would refuse more than 20 transactions from the same IP per ledger).

It's just to create artificial demand for XRPs, like taxation having to be paid in your country's mandated currency, and to make OpenCoin Inc rich. Now, there's no problem with people getting rich, but when they are advertising it as a decentralized and open payment system and trying to get the bitcoin crowd to hop in ...

They can inflate, deflate, distribute the supply in whatever way they like(e.g., give a lot to some shills and only very little to honest appliers so they can pull off a "pump and dump")  without even being found to do so, as long as they do it cautiously.

It's like a mixture of FEDs and Charles Ponzi's wildest wet dreams.

So XRP has sort of a demurrage implemented? On top of that given ripple is closed source they can inflate the XRP supply if they wanted.

Wow I rather use the federal reserve system if this is the case. Lol


Maybe demurrage is the wrong word.

there is only one reason why XRP get destroyed after a tx takes place.

and that is to drive up the value of the remaining XRP, the majority of which just happen to reside with OpenCoin from printing.

Sure, we need something like 10 million cash USD liquidity daily please.  I'll go ahead and email you where to send the next batch every half second or so.  Thanks

This is a problem that will be a lot more tractable when we have the 100s of trillion of dollars that central banking bleeds out of our lives, on a global level, even if OpenCoin takes a chunk of it.  This abuse is real and we should not discount it.  I believe Ripple will allow us to see the causes and effects of this abuse more clearly.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and it's not a stupid idea.  Ripple has supported Bitcoin since practically day #1, way back in 2009-10 -- it does so because Bitcoin and Ripple are both on the bleeding edge together, and as complementary systems their users share very much the same interests.

Like everything else decentralized, you only need one person to 'interface' with existing banking, somewhere on the network.  Everything else is convenience.

And by the way, if any of you need to interact with the legacy banking system, hit me up a message and we'll try to work something out if you've got credit to me.

With Ripple you control how *valuable* your money of choice is, with obvious limits (you're not going to pull the value of BTC itself up very far, but you will determine to a great extent how much BTC you have to spend)


A gateway is "central" in that it interfaces with other currency systems, in ways that normal individuals aren't going to care to.  Without other systems to interact with, gateways would be unnecessary.


The catch being that your "printed" debt will only be taken seriously insofar as you are trustworthy.  The free lunch isn't in the printing of the money, trust me.


...by someone who has no way of paying that.   ie practically nobody people in the ripple network are not affected by that credit link at all.   All this link is is an expression of utter trust between two nodes -- it is as if the CPU in a single machine is trusting the RAM in that same single machine.  If either malfunctions, the other is probably not usable -- this level of practically infinite trust is useful to represent in some situations.  All it means is that if you trust either, you're effectively trusting both.


It's worth remding readers here that XRP is not Ripple, it is a special purpose currency used for spam prevention.  If the half they keep becomes valuable, it will be because of the half they do not keep -- and if *that* becomes valuable, it will be because it is serving a use and adding value to the network.   They will only prosper to the extent that they are increasing the utility of their userbase.  Let the market sort this out.


It is not *finished* yet.  there is a difference between proprietary and unreleased software.  It is true they can still change the rules -- they can wipe the slate clean (this is called a 'jubilee') -- which is why you shouldn't use a beta system for anything of serious value.  You should, instead use villages.cc if you need Ripple to do something in a more verifiable way.


Ripple alone could replace central banks.  It builds on top of them only to the extent that it builds on top of *all* trust.


Big words for someone who's got his own marketing campaign going on to discredit Ripple.


And yet, in the long run we're dead.  What we need is a system that works now, that uses trust that we have now, built on top of human relationships and human computer relationships we have now.  It's true that not all people are equally trustable, and that if you're putting 1BTC through Ripple there needs to be a credit path between you and whatever it is you're trying to send to.  This is by design.  If you are not trustworthy, you will find it difficult to spend any significant amount through the network.  You'll have to default back to Bitcoin and other systems, if so.  However there are more transactions that are possible, more and better opportunities for trade -- and we are making them happen.