Topic: [XRP] Ripple Speculation - page 375. (Read 637342 times)

Furthermore that it is open source does highly indicate that something is wrong about ripple. They surely don't do it because of the open source sense (like Linux Linus Torvalds "I believe open source is the only way you can develop software"). I tell you something is wrong there for sure.

Is Ripple a money printing machine?

1) Seriously who tells out that they do not give themselves more XRP since it's centralized? They can literally print themeselves money and change it to dollars. I see why banks like that.

2) Nobody even knows if they really use XRP internal, since it seems suboptimal to other systems. Furthermore XRP price is highly volatile, I don't see that Banks would like that. If the don't use it internal XRP would be worth nothing.

3) Why should XRP be worth more if Ripple gets more banks partners? I mean it's purpose (ripple claims they use it in their process) is not affected at all by that.

A coin of bullshit that cost me thousands of dollars,i will no longer believe the news about RIPPLE be it DUMP or JUMP
Look at the current RIPPLE price 

There have been a few proof-of-concept implementations and recently Thailand's Siam Commercial Bank announced they starting using Ripple software for Thailand-to-Japan remittance.

This is a big deal, but it needs context; first of all, SCB bank is an investor in Ripple company, making it fairly logical they would experiment and promote the blockchain technology they invested in. More importantly however, I see no mention of XRP in any of the press releases.

Is it being used? Or are they using Interledger Protocol (ILP)? ILP was also developed by Ripple, and appears to be a fairly impressive piece of technology to bridge between various blockchains and systems. It's open source, hosted by the Linux Foundation and could become a part of the Hyperledger framework.

But note that ILP itself has no native token; it doesn't depend on XRP and doesn't add value to it. Even if ILP finds wide adoption in the fintech industry, it will do precious little for XRP.

As for the moonshot of replacing Swift; first of all, I highly doubt a global consensus protocol is the right approach and could even scale to that level. But also, banks currently control Swift. How likely is it they would relinquish control to a small startup and allow themselves to become beholden to its private currency, that they have no need for? I just don't see that happening.

This is especially true when alternatives like Hyperledger exist that do not suffer from Ripple's inherent drawbacks; a protocol which is backed by a far larger consortium of corporations, which relies on proven consensus algorithms that have been researched, peer reviewed and thoroughly tested for over 15 years, and a protocol which at least at first glance, appears to do almost everything Ripple does and more, including things like smart contracts.

The only obvious thing that appears missing from Hyperledger compared to Ripple, is the one thing for which I see absolutely no reason for them to want: the XRP token.

There have been a few proof-of-concept implementations and recently Thailand's Siam Commercial Bank announced they starting using Ripple software for Thailand-to-Japan remittance.

This is a big deal, but it needs context; first of all, SCB bank is an investor in Ripple company, making it fairly logical they would experiment and promote the blockchain technology they invested in. More importantly however, I see no mention of XRP in any of the press releases.

Is it being used? Or are they using Interledger Protocol (ILP)? ILP was also developed by Ripple, and appears to be a fairly impressive piece of technology to bridge between various blockchains and systems. It's open source, hosted by the Linux Foundation and could become a part of the Hyperledger framework.

But note that ILP itself has no native token; it doesn't depend on XRP and doesn't add value to it. Even if ILP finds wide adoption in the fintech industry, it will do precious little for XRP.

As for the moonshot of replacing Swift; first of all, I highly doubt a global consensus protocol is the right approach and could even scale to that level. But also, banks currently control Swift. How likely is it they would relinquish control to a small startup and allow themselves to become beholden to its private currency, that they have no need for? I just don't see that happening.

This is especially true when alternatives like Hyperledger exist that do not suffer from Ripple's inherent drawbacks; a protocol which is backed by a far larger consortium of corporations, which relies on proven consensus algorithms that have been researched, peer reviewed and thoroughly tested for over 15 years, and a protocol which at least at first glance, appears to do almost everything Ripple does and more, including things like smart contracts.

The only obvious thing that appears missing from Hyperledger compared to Ripple, is the one thing for which I see absolutely no reason for them to want: the XRP token.

Can you more elaborate on the technical side taking following factors:

a.) Any other independent reviewer, that has no commercial need to criticise Ripple as possible competitor.
b.) Something that is not back in 2015, we kind of mid 2017
c.) Taking words of Ripple representative, where they either admit problem or present solution

Unfortunately you have a bad record in this topic to consider you trustworthy.

Also speaking of innovations: Bitcoin was not that innovative and build on top of concepts that already existed long before, Litecoin is copy of Bitcoin that is test sandbox, Ethereum as-well does not bring completely new things into world, they just implemented something that was designed before but did not have much support. Most other coins have copy/paste Bitcoin base we small ammendments. Most "privacy" coins has questionable privacy and so on and so forth. Apple was not first company to create phone with touch screen, and concepts were put on paper far before when ever first touch screen phone appeared.

So, again what are you trying to bring on the table?