You made a thread to promote something you are invested in, and offer NO convincing counterarguments to the problems with the NETWORK, all while attacking personally everyone who disagrees.
To be fair, you wrote quite a few personal attacks too...
Anyways, to your "question":
You did not point out any single problem in this thread actually (as this is your second post here).
The network related issues I saw so far in this thread are:
Did not know who wrote it. The problems remain though, the currency is partly centralized with its central server use, i believe most servers are run by the company itself (there is no incentive to run a server too) and there is a very hefty, up to absurd, premine (25%)
This is on one hand not true (most servers are ran by the community), on the other hand it still is true (most of these trust RippleLabs' validators to be honest and did not diversify their UNLs). Currently there are ongoing efforts to give server operators better tools to create proper UNLs.
Ripple is centralised through few ledgers. Ledger owners can make a cartel and scam people.
What the, I don't even... No. Just no.
Moving on:
I've tried my hardest to like Ripple, used it for 6 months. I have no issue with the distribution. The issue is the way it works. ITS A ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS. I still ahve coins in my wallet that I can't work out how to sell cause I have to set up a gateway with a specific trader. ITS AWFUL it drove me to tears.
That's an actual problem, as the public servers are often crowded, overloaded or slow. I recommend anyone who is serious about trading on Ripple to take the time and set up a local rippled + client. It can be VERY fast, reliable and fun to trade there, or you might have to deal with websockets that silently seem to die out, clients showing up as offline or similar stuff.
The issue with not knowing how the stuff works is also a milder issue, just like with Bitcoin documentation will be better over time I hope though.
Citation needed. I have proof of ripple's centralized control as it is part of the architecture. It was designed that way.
There still was no proof posted anywhere... moving on
I have tried ripple and found it a huge pain in the ass.
Uhm... moving on
Nothing is changeable in ripple instantly. It only looks so because you're not actually trading anything but IOU, i.e. meaningless 'bank notes' that say that you own 1 BTC. However, you owning 1BTC is completely dependent on your trust network, and when shit will hit the fan, you'll lose everything you own, just like with our current banking system. Not only that, but you expose yourself to unnecessary risk just by using the ripple network.
If you want to withdraw BTC from the ripple network to your computer wallet in which you OWN ACTUAL BTC, it will still take you 1 hour because you'll have to take someone's BTC and send them to your wallet through the BTC network (and thus wait 60 minutes for ~6 comfirmations). Not only that but the 60 minutes you wait is a proof of security. Faster transaction times are only marginally more secure, because the network is backed by the amount of computer time that passed in order to grow the blockchain to the size it has.
While the second paragraph is not really a good or correct description of Bitcoin and other PoW coins, it is sufficiently correct. The first paragraph is also technically correct (you don't trade assets, you trade ownership of an asset). If you actually want to trade though, you will have to give up ownership of BTC before being allowed to trade them to a neutral trusted third party. This is necessary risk. I wouldn't recommend using Ripple gateways to store your pension fund either but as with any exchange or webwallet/hot wallet to just keep enough there that you can do smaller transactions for convenience items. Unlike banks, dedicated Ripple gateways likely have to follow e-money issuer licensing which mandates that a full reserve has to be kept at all times amongst other things. Anyways, yes - there are counterparty risks with Ripple and while you reduce some other risks (e.g. trading engines - the reason for at least 2 BTCUSD crashes so far or exchanges going offline or halting trading for some time as well as opaque order books) you add risks in different areas (Ripple as software, HFT not really possible, markets not that developed atm).
The difference between bitcoin and ripple.
Ripple is the PRISM of Cryptos. Ripple can easily be easily subjugated by the NSA since it is a corporation and has to abide by National laws, homeland security.
Ah, the picture that confuses the masses.
The main thing that's wrong about this:
Bitcoin is not decentralized as suggested by that picture, it has a central block chain that records global state and everyone has to have this exact database, otherwise it woudn't work. BitTorrent is similar with trackers/swarms as is Skype with their centralized account infrastructure. Ripple too has a central database (called ledger), all rippled servers have to keep in sync with it, or they are not actually running "Ripple", just like Bitcoin servers on a different genesis block are not actually running Bitcoin but a fork of it.
Also PayPal or Amazon are definitely not working as you see in this picture, since the servers there need to be aware of other servers too, or they risk double spending or inconsistent state. OpenTransactions actually tries to apply partly such a structure as seen on the right in this picture and it is a VERY interesting approach!
Anyways, that picture does not mean what you think it means, it is incorrect in nearly everything that's written on or below it and even though a lot of people suddenly seem to act as if they got a PhD in distributed systems design just by looking at this, they did not. Sorry. It's very nice to look at and apparently easy to understand though, so it might have some value as example.
The ripple concept is a brilliant one. The part of the main arguments against it being an IOU system are weak (it's not real money!--except this is a construct that is millennia old). Its execution leaves a lot to be desired, though. There is no advantage to anyone using the ripple system vs. a more open competitor.
This is one of the more interesting ones - the thing is that with payment networks like Ripple and also Bitcoin it depends a lot on network effects and adoption rates. There is little reason to use MasterCard if you can use Visa everywhere it is accepted. Starting your own competing credit card however is going to be really hard, if not impossible unless you can beat MC/V on nearly every battlefield that exists - and even then, there is a good chance that they will adapt and absorb your innovations. Just like people predict Bitcoin will act in the Altcoin scene.
Yes, this. So it will be forked, the good stuff used and the bad stuff left behind.
Splash looks nice but there is no news as of late.
I agree splash sounds nice, most people seem to focus on XRP as "bad stuff" though, not so much else.
The problem with Ripple and most fiat systems is that an intermediary determines the value of the fiat apart from the value of the original asset.
No. Markets made against XRP are not a requirement at all to use Ripple.
The network is subject to the whims of the ripple creators when ever they change the protocol of the role network. Not only can they increase distribution but they can also increase total ripples changing the value of ripples reason to other crypto currencies. Again anything can be done with a software update. So yes Ripple adds additional, unnecessary risk.
This is wrong as well, anderl just needs to read the source code of rippled for that. The chance that additional XRP are created is about as high as additional BTC being created beyond 21 millions. Surely possible (and even easier in Bitcoin by changing a single line) BUT definitely not going to be accepted by the network.
So... enough answered for now or do you have some actual real questions/concerns beyond pointing out who is an imbecile?
