Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ripple
#31
Jacob I think we are all aware of the huge amount of premined Ripple. I agree that if the price goes to $1000 a few people will get so crazy rich that they will be able to buy a whole country if they wanted. I also agree that it's not truly distributed. Some even argue that it's not a real cryptocurrency. I still think that Ripple is doing something good for the banking system. We still have to live with the banking system even if we don't like it. I don't understand all the internal workings of Ripple but I know enough to see that it's a bridge between banks located in different countries making validation of transactions between account possible (include name, address etc) before the transaction takes place. Therefore the speed can never be as high as for a simple address to address transaction. However the transaction is stored in the blockchain and it can therefore be validated for financial inspection to avoid fraud and money laundering. I also know that the success of Ripple is right now dependant on the banks involvement in Ripple. Surely not all agree with the Ripple project and I have also for a long time been in doubt if it's right or wrong. I came to the conclusion that it's a better system than the current one. It's a step on the road.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/60995...t-bitcoin/

...and thanks for the very detailed post you make Jacob. It's great work!
Cardano is the most promising 3 gen. crypto right now.


Reply
#32
(2018-02-19, 11:12 AM)Carsten Wrote: Jacob I think we are all aware of the huge amount of premined Ripple. I agree that if the price goes to $1000 a few people will get so crazy rich that they will be able to buy a whole country if they wanted. I also agree that it's not truly distributed. Some even argue that it's not a real cryptocurrency. I still think that Ripple is doing something good for the banking system. We still have to live with the banking system even if we don't like it. I don't understand all the internal workings of Ripple but I know enough to see that it's a bridge between banks located in different countries making validation of transactions between account possible (include name, address etc) before the transaction takes place. Therefore the speed can never be as high as for a simple address to address transaction. However the transaction is stored in the blockchain and it can therefore be validated for financial inspection to avoid fraud and money laundering. I also know that the success of Ripple is right now dependant on the banks involvement in Ripple. Surely not all agree with the Ripple project and I have also for a long time been in doubt if it's right or wrong. I came to the conclusion that it's a better system than the current one. It's a step on the road.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/60995...t-bitcoin/

...and thanks for the very detailed post you make Jacob. It's great work!

Carsten, I believe a pre-mine is a good thing. A technological solution shouldn't cause more problems in the form of energy and resource inefficiency the way Bitcoin, Ethereum et al do.

If XRP went to $1000, Jed McCaleb and Chris Larsen would each have a net worth of over $5 Trillion dollars. They would each own the GDP of India and United Kingdom combined. That kind of money is reserved for monarchs, dictators and once in a lifetime entrepreneurs. Even if you include the $35 Billion+ Dollars Bill Gates has given away, his net worth would be below $135 Billion Dollars.

Look at the achievements so far of these people:
Bill Gates
Jeff Bezos
Warren Buffett
Mark Zuckerberg
Larry Page
Sergey Brin
Jack Ma

If XRP went to $1000, Chris Larsen would have a net worth that was 10 times the net worth of these 7 gentlemen combined.

The crypto enthusiast has so many ICOs, blockchains and tokens to choose from. Why would they choose to prop up the value of a token which banks get for free or at steep discounts?

As far as the banking system goes, I believe its function should be limited to accepting savings, lending only money they actually have as deposits, and giving a share of the interest they earn to depositors.

I don't think things like selling insurance, credit card issuance, stock market services etc should be dominated by banks. At the end of the day, it is the deposits of the very same people who consume these services that is used as collateral in case of payouts or bad debts.

I believe distributed cryptographic ledgers have the capacity to relegate banks to their most basic function.

As far as being right or wrong, banks are neither, they are morally agnostic establishments. Banking corporations, on the other hand ... that's a competely different kettle of fish.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)