Re: Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
There is a killer app though. On 12/31/17, jam...@echeque.com wrote: > On 12/31/2017 10:01 AM, Steven Schear wrote: >> I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined >> miner selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 >> paper I've mentioned here. > > I cannot immediately find your link to your paper. > > Obviously, at full scale we are always going to have immensely more > clients than full peers, likely by a factor of hundreds of thousands, > but we need to have enough peers, which means we need to reward peers > for being peers, for providing the service of storing blockchain data, > propagating transactions, verifying the blockchain, and making the data > readily available, rather than for the current pointless bit crunching > and waste of electricity employed by current mining. > > The power over the blockchain, and the revenues coming from transaction > and storage fees, have to go to this large number of peers, rather than, > as at present, mostly to four miners located in China. > > Also, at scale, we are going to have to shard, so that a peer is > actually a pool of machines, each with a shard of the blockchain, > perhaps with all the machines run by one person, perhaps run by a group > of people who trust each other, each of whom runs one machine managing > one shard of the blockchain. > > Rewards, and the decision as to which chain is final, has to go to > weight of stake, but also to proof of service - to peers, who store and > check the blockchain and make it available. > > All durable keys should live in client wallets, because they can be > secured off the internet. So how do we implement weight of stake, since > only peers are actually sufficiently well connected to actually > participate in governance? > > To solve this problem, stakes are held by client wallets. Stakes that > are in the clear get registered with a peer, the registration gets > recorded in the blockchain, and the peer is gets influence, and to some > extent rewards, proportional to the stake registered with it, > conditional on the part it is doing to supply data storage, > verification, and bandwidth. >
Re: Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
On 12/31/2017 10:01 AM, Steven Schear wrote: I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined miner selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 paper I've mentioned here. I cannot immediately find your link to your paper. Obviously, at full scale we are always going to have immensely more clients than full peers, likely by a factor of hundreds of thousands, but we need to have enough peers, which means we need to reward peers for being peers, for providing the service of storing blockchain data, propagating transactions, verifying the blockchain, and making the data readily available, rather than for the current pointless bit crunching and waste of electricity employed by current mining. The power over the blockchain, and the revenues coming from transaction and storage fees, have to go to this large number of peers, rather than, as at present, mostly to four miners located in China. Also, at scale, we are going to have to shard, so that a peer is actually a pool of machines, each with a shard of the blockchain, perhaps with all the machines run by one person, perhaps run by a group of people who trust each other, each of whom runs one machine managing one shard of the blockchain. Rewards, and the decision as to which chain is final, has to go to weight of stake, but also to proof of service - to peers, who store and check the blockchain and make it available. All durable keys should live in client wallets, because they can be secured off the internet. So how do we implement weight of stake, since only peers are actually sufficiently well connected to actually participate in governance? To solve this problem, stakes are held by client wallets. Stakes that are in the clear get registered with a peer, the registration gets recorded in the blockchain, and the peer is gets influence, and to some extent rewards, proportional to the stake registered with it, conditional on the part it is doing to supply data storage, verification, and bandwidth.
Re: USA: National Security Strategy, Juan's Wet Dream -- OFF-TOPIC (James Donald is a creep)
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:20:46AM +1000, jam...@echeque.com wrote: observe how progressives treat their "friends". On 12/31/2017 9:54 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Indeed. Like Jacob Applebaum was treated by his "progressive" Tor Inc "friends" Ah, yes, lovely, lovely. He worked for Greenpeace etc. Greenpeace needs to be hung from the yardarm for piracy on the high seas, but, though we are not allowed to take effective measures against piracy on the high seas, we see the left devouring its own, which is some small amount of justice, just as Saint Paul the Apostle observed that homosexuality brought its own punishment in this world. Jacob also worked for Kink.com, which has recently been devoured by social justice warriors. Probably he was one of those who devoured it, and now he himself is devoured.
Re: Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
The ability for clients to create individualized miner blocklists could
help diminish cartels and centralization
The escheat could help prevent future "submarining" of coins thought lost
or abandoned (and their economic impact) and re-cycle those coins.
On Dec 30, 2017 4:01 PM, "Steven Schear" wrote:
> I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined
> miner selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 paper
> I've mentioned here. Heartening, Garzik & Company's decision their
> upcoming Bitcoin United fork appears to implement some form of our
> suggested block escheat.
>
> On Dec 30, 2017 3:28 PM, "John Newman" wrote:
>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From:* byfield
>> *Date:* December 29, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST
>> *To:* "Florian Cramer" , "Morlock Elloi" <
>> morlockel...@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* nettim...@mx.kein.org
>> *Subject:* *Re: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use
>> for blockchain*
>>
>> On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote:
>>
>> The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
>>
>> system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two
>>
>> willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for
>> a
>>
>> trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay
>>
>> complains 'but Visa... but FDIC... but NASDAQ,' one reasonable response
>> is:
>>
>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The point of Bitcoin wasn't to succeed to the degree that it
>>
>> has, or in the way that it has.
>>
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>>
>> If that had been Bitcoin's only goal, then it would have sufficed to
>> create
>>
>> a crypographic peer-to-peer payment system based on/supporting existing
>>
>> currencies and their exchange rates.
>>
>>
>> Things got politically murky with the introduction of Bitcoin as its own
>>
>> currency based on Hayek's and Mises' economic theory, i.e. with built-in
>>
>> deflation and absence of political control except through owners.
>>
>>
>> Well, the difference is your addition of 'only,' as in it's 'only goal.'
>> If I say I love you, Florian, that would be special, wouldn't it? But if I
>> say I love *only* you, Florian, that's a different kettle of fish. 'Only'
>> is one of those tricky words that serves as a mule for smuggling entire
>> ideological apparatuses. 'Still' is another one: 'You *still* believe that?
>>
>> As someone who's thought a lot about design, you probably understand
>> better than many what a proof of concept is: an implementation — or we'd
>> maybe we should think of it in more anthropological terms, as an *artifact*
>> — that, more or less, tests a specific proposal. How that test is
>> constructed, and the context in which it's conducted, involve a lot of
>> artifice. Many of the assumptions that shape that artifice go unstated. The
>> questions we're left with, in the case of Bitcoin, are what those
>> assumptions were, and what they might mean.
>>
>> If I'd said that goal was Bitcoin's *only* goal, then I'd agree with your
>> objection, but I didn't: instead, I talked about the explicit ideological
>> beliefs that dominated the cypherpunks milieu, including their implacable
>> hostility to the state, their all but explicit aim of attacking models of
>> trust anchored in ~public institutions, the ambiguity of their use of the
>> idea of honesty, and — crucially — their interest in Vernor Vinge's novella
>> _True Names_. It didn't seem worth the effort to say they were libertarian
>> free-market extremists, because that's widely discussed. So your point is
>> right on, but it seems like more of an elaboration ('and') than an
>> objection ('but'). They didn't think talking about Hayek or Mises in the
>> original Bitcoin paper, but as you say those ideas were baked into it from
>> the beginning.
>>
>> Whoever designed Bitcoin assumed that 'currency' and 'an electronic
>> payment system' were interchangeable or even identical. They (and I'm
>> pretty sure it was a group, not an individual) didn't set out to design
>> better banknotes *or* to develop a better PayPal, they set out to create
>> something entirely new that could function as either/both but wasn't *only*
>> limited to meeting those specifications.
>>
>> That brings us to Morlock's point about whether Bitcoin succeeded or
>> failed. Two responses, one good, one bad. \_(ツ)_/¯.
>>
>> This reminds me of discourses on theory and practice of communism. One
>> good, the other bad.
>>
>>
>> Bitcoin failed for practical/mundane reason: it ceased to be distributed
>> long time ago (today 4 Chinese mints control 50+% of hash power), while
>> talking heads deceivingly ignored this, and continued to proselytize the
>> initial but long extinct 'distributed' meme. It's more centralized than US
>> dollar.
>>
>>
>> PoW concentration is mandated by its technological nature and there are
>> no signs that anything will change any time soon. Every other 'proof'
>> introduces either benevolent coordinating authority (whic
Re: Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined miner
selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 paper I've
mentioned here. Heartening, Garzik & Company's decision their upcoming
Bitcoin United fork appears to implement some form of our suggested block
escheat.
On Dec 30, 2017 3:28 PM, "John Newman" wrote:
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* byfield
> *Date:* December 29, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST
> *To:* "Florian Cramer" , "Morlock Elloi" <
> morlockel...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* nettim...@mx.kein.org
> *Subject:* *Re: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for
> blockchain*
>
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote:
>
> The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
>
> system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two
>
> willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a
>
> trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay
>
> complains 'but Visa... but FDIC... but NASDAQ,' one reasonable response is:
>
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The point of Bitcoin wasn't to succeed to the degree that it
>
> has, or in the way that it has.
>
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>
> If that had been Bitcoin's only goal, then it would have sufficed to create
>
> a crypographic peer-to-peer payment system based on/supporting existing
>
> currencies and their exchange rates.
>
>
> Things got politically murky with the introduction of Bitcoin as its own
>
> currency based on Hayek's and Mises' economic theory, i.e. with built-in
>
> deflation and absence of political control except through owners.
>
>
> Well, the difference is your addition of 'only,' as in it's 'only goal.'
> If I say I love you, Florian, that would be special, wouldn't it? But if I
> say I love *only* you, Florian, that's a different kettle of fish. 'Only'
> is one of those tricky words that serves as a mule for smuggling entire
> ideological apparatuses. 'Still' is another one: 'You *still* believe that?
>
> As someone who's thought a lot about design, you probably understand
> better than many what a proof of concept is: an implementation — or we'd
> maybe we should think of it in more anthropological terms, as an *artifact*
> — that, more or less, tests a specific proposal. How that test is
> constructed, and the context in which it's conducted, involve a lot of
> artifice. Many of the assumptions that shape that artifice go unstated. The
> questions we're left with, in the case of Bitcoin, are what those
> assumptions were, and what they might mean.
>
> If I'd said that goal was Bitcoin's *only* goal, then I'd agree with your
> objection, but I didn't: instead, I talked about the explicit ideological
> beliefs that dominated the cypherpunks milieu, including their implacable
> hostility to the state, their all but explicit aim of attacking models of
> trust anchored in ~public institutions, the ambiguity of their use of the
> idea of honesty, and — crucially — their interest in Vernor Vinge's novella
> _True Names_. It didn't seem worth the effort to say they were libertarian
> free-market extremists, because that's widely discussed. So your point is
> right on, but it seems like more of an elaboration ('and') than an
> objection ('but'). They didn't think talking about Hayek or Mises in the
> original Bitcoin paper, but as you say those ideas were baked into it from
> the beginning.
>
> Whoever designed Bitcoin assumed that 'currency' and 'an electronic
> payment system' were interchangeable or even identical. They (and I'm
> pretty sure it was a group, not an individual) didn't set out to design
> better banknotes *or* to develop a better PayPal, they set out to create
> something entirely new that could function as either/both but wasn't *only*
> limited to meeting those specifications.
>
> That brings us to Morlock's point about whether Bitcoin succeeded or
> failed. Two responses, one good, one bad. \_(ツ)_/¯.
>
> This reminds me of discourses on theory and practice of communism. One
> good, the other bad.
>
>
> Bitcoin failed for practical/mundane reason: it ceased to be distributed
> long time ago (today 4 Chinese mints control 50+% of hash power), while
> talking heads deceivingly ignored this, and continued to proselytize the
> initial but long extinct 'distributed' meme. It's more centralized than US
> dollar.
>
>
> PoW concentration is mandated by its technological nature and there are no
> signs that anything will change any time soon. Every other 'proof'
> introduces either benevolent coordinating authority (which is utter bs), or
> switches CPU for something that has not been demonstrated as
> concentrate-able yet because no one bothered (such as proof of space - big
> disks are naturally distributed ... right.)
>
>
> There is little more to say. Bitcoin is a big lie, for many too big to be
> acknowledged.
>
>
> Possible futures and promises will continue to be built on the miserably
> failed premise, with non-working workarounds
Re: USA: National Security Strategy, Juan's Wet Dream -- OFF-TOPIC (James Donald is a creep)
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:20:46AM +1000, jam...@echeque.com wrote: > On 12/28/2017 07:42 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote: > > Who will cry for your death, James? Who will miss you? Nobody. > Social Justice Warriors always project. I hear the voice of a woman who has > cats instead of children. > > When you die, no one will notice, and your cats will eat you. > > I have children, I have grandchildren. You think you have friends, but > observe how progressives treat their > "friends". Indeed. Like Jacob Applebaum was treated by his "progressive" Tor Inc "friends" ... > When progs die, their cats eat them.
Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
Begin forwarded message:
> From: byfield
> Date: December 29, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST
> To: "Florian Cramer" , "Morlock Elloi"
>
> Cc: nettim...@mx.kein.org
> Subject: Re: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for
> blockchain
>
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote:
>
>>> The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
>>> system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two
>>> willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a
>>> trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay
>>> complains 'but Visa... but FDIC... but NASDAQ,' one reasonable response is:
>>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The point of Bitcoin wasn't to succeed to the degree that it
>>> has, or in the way that it has.
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> If that had been Bitcoin's only goal, then it would have sufficed to create
>> a crypographic peer-to-peer payment system based on/supporting existing
>> currencies and their exchange rates.
>>
>> Things got politically murky with the introduction of Bitcoin as its own
>> currency based on Hayek's and Mises' economic theory, i.e. with built-in
>> deflation and absence of political control except through owners.
>
> Well, the difference is your addition of 'only,' as in it's 'only goal.' If I
> say I love you, Florian, that would be special, wouldn't it? But if I say I
> love *only* you, Florian, that's a different kettle of fish. 'Only' is one of
> those tricky words that serves as a mule for smuggling entire ideological
> apparatuses. 'Still' is another one: 'You *still* believe that?
>
> As someone who's thought a lot about design, you probably understand better
> than many what a proof of concept is: an implementation — or we'd maybe we
> should think of it in more anthropological terms, as an *artifact* — that,
> more or less, tests a specific proposal. How that test is constructed, and
> the context in which it's conducted, involve a lot of artifice. Many of the
> assumptions that shape that artifice go unstated. The questions we're left
> with, in the case of Bitcoin, are what those assumptions were, and what they
> might mean.
>
> If I'd said that goal was Bitcoin's *only* goal, then I'd agree with your
> objection, but I didn't: instead, I talked about the explicit ideological
> beliefs that dominated the cypherpunks milieu, including their implacable
> hostility to the state, their all but explicit aim of attacking models of
> trust anchored in ~public institutions, the ambiguity of their use of the
> idea of honesty, and — crucially — their interest in Vernor Vinge's novella
> _True Names_. It didn't seem worth the effort to say they were libertarian
> free-market extremists, because that's widely discussed. So your point is
> right on, but it seems like more of an elaboration ('and') than an objection
> ('but'). They didn't think talking about Hayek or Mises in the original
> Bitcoin paper, but as you say those ideas were baked into it from the
> beginning.
>
> Whoever designed Bitcoin assumed that 'currency' and 'an electronic payment
> system' were interchangeable or even identical. They (and I'm pretty sure it
> was a group, not an individual) didn't set out to design better banknotes
> *or* to develop a better PayPal, they set out to create something entirely
> new that could function as either/both but wasn't *only* limited to meeting
> those specifications.
>
> That brings us to Morlock's point about whether Bitcoin succeeded or failed.
> Two responses, one good, one bad. \_(ツ)_/¯.
>
>> This reminds me of discourses on theory and practice of communism. One good,
>> the other bad.
>>
>> Bitcoin failed for practical/mundane reason: it ceased to be distributed
>> long time ago (today 4 Chinese mints control 50+% of hash power), while
>> talking heads deceivingly ignored this, and continued to proselytize the
>> initial but long extinct 'distributed' meme. It's more centralized than US
>> dollar.
>>
>> PoW concentration is mandated by its technological nature and there are no
>> signs that anything will change any time soon. Every other 'proof'
>> introduces either benevolent coordinating authority (which is utter bs), or
>> switches CPU for something that has not been demonstrated as
>> concentrate-able yet because no one bothered (such as proof of space - big
>> disks are naturally distributed ... right.)
>>
>> There is little more to say. Bitcoin is a big lie, for many too big to be
>> acknowledged.
>>
>> Possible futures and promises will continue to be built on the miserably
>> failed premise, with non-working workarounds (But maybe the next workaround
>> will work? ... Bitcoin is just the first try, the concept is good? ... It's
>> such great idea and must be revisited? ... etc.)
>
> Morlock, your point about its concentration nails it, and in that sense, yes,
> Bitcoin was a miserable failure. That structural tendency toward
> concentrat
Re: USA: National Security Strategy, Juan's Wet Dream -- OFF-TOPIC (James Donald is a creep)
On 12/28/2017 07:42 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote: Who will cry for your death, James? Who will miss you? Nobody. Social Justice Warriors always project. I hear the voice of a woman who has cats instead of children. When you die, no one will notice, and your cats will eat you. I have children, I have grandchildren. You think you have friends, but observe how progressives treat their "friends". When progs die, their cats eat them.
Re: Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
>> > What should investors know before investing in XRP? > Investors optimize profit, not moral values. The links present some investment risks, including that investors could lose in war brought by decentralists, or lose to subjugation by greater centralists, etc. What the investor does with the information is of course up to them, but fool be they to not consider it. > Current bitcoin (and likely almost all of the decentralized crowd) is > unusable on large scale. Currently BTC is, others... maybe, maybe not. Even were some degree of centralization to be part of some designs, there's nothing that says Bank / Corp / Gov will must or should be the default permitted or rightful places to park, permanently or otherwise, the central parts of the designs. The communities and code could perhaps do reasonably well enough to select and maintain some supernodes. Coinspace is trying all sorts of new models, who knows which will prevail. > claims to scale to Visa's 50K tps). There are coins already proving out research beyond that, look for them. Beating plastic / global tps, expecting one coin to do it all, all sorts of other single focus arguments... while nice thoughts, aren't neccessarily requisite win conditions of this months or next years battles, or perhaps even the war. Being decentralized censor resistant, able to soak up and store value, to spend it wthin competing costs for similar old world transactions, with enough frequency and widespread uses that users will integrate it into their old world payment mix, freedom to travel from coin to coin via exchange, political, social, and much more to it than just "Visa". Allowing to be focused are traps that will kill you. > Too bad the Bitcoin founding father(s) didn't think about this outcome > and code the solution. Too bad as to luck of a first and one shot kill, though that wouldn't really be a rational expectation and they didn't really have to, they showed cracks in the defense, philosophical, legal, political, financial, operational and technical weaknesses, it's up to you to exploit them and take the fortress... the sooner and harder you roll, with sufficiently vast, advanced, sustained and united armada, the better your odds of winning.
Re: ioerror again...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 11:18:30 -0800 g2s wrote: > https://twitter.com/chelseakomlo/status/946904128554504192 > I've been standing these bozos and bozoettes down, and describing how > institutional slander works, and positing such ideas as... So it > doesn't happen every time (calling the police). Fact of the matter is > for ALL these alleged incidents it didn't happen at all. Look > schmuck, I did industrial statistics for a decade and your background > doesn't have to be that to see this defies the odds. I just > wonder... ...how many of the 'complainants' are involved in tor's UI, > and whether they were told their jobs would be threatened if io got > his way, focusing on real security instead of becoming the insecure > consumer garbage it has become due to focus on a sucker-friendly UI? meh, tor was always a piece of shit and controlled opposition created by the US military . now they are just showing their true colors in a more crass way cunt chelsea komlo "a core contributor to the Tor Project as of 2017." LMAO - what can the cunt do apart from making sandwiches. > Rr
ioerror again...
https://twitter.com/chelseakomlo/status/946904128554504192 I've been standing these bozos and bozoettes down, and describing how institutional slander works, and positing such ideas as... So it doesn't happen every time (calling the police). Fact of the matter is for ALL these alleged incidents it didn't happen at all. Look schmuck, I did industrial statistics for a decade and your background doesn't have to be that to see this defies the odds. I just wonder... ...how many of the 'complainants' are involved in tor's UI, and whether they were told their jobs would be threatened if io got his way, focusing on real security instead of becoming the insecure consumer garbage it has become due to focus on a sucker-friendly UI? Rr
Re: Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
You're absolutely right about the marketing. We've seen an influx of "noobs" recently, and they tend to look for the "next Bitcoin"... IE something cheap currently, which can shoot up 10x 100x etc. Ripple will leave em bloody. I can't stand the coin, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't use it for a quick 5x recently. No shortage of sheep in this market, and so few people aware that bots are already doing their bot shit here, just like other markets. On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, 11:38 juan wrote: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:19:48 + > "J.R. Jones" wrote: > > > It's viewed as "the banker's coin" and run by them. > > It's everything cryptocurrency started out against. > > yep. I should have said a successful attack at the 'marketing' > level. > > One could argue the "crypto market" has decided that ripple is > oh so amazing, and "the market" is always right. Or, more > realistically, the market is manipulated and 'traders' behave > like sheep... > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, 11:16 juan wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 03:12:19 -0500 > > > grarpamp wrote: > > > > > > > > What should investors know before investing in XRP? > > > > > > > > > well...ripple looks like a successful attack on bitcoin, at > > > least for the time being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Georgi Guninski > wrote: > > What should investors know before investing in XRP? > > https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(company) > https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol) > > $100M Bank funded, massively Corporate and Government partnered, > inflationary, non-p2p centralized gateways, trackable, censorable, selling > their own premine / printing, digital fiat / fiat transport, etc. > > Some people are saying those things, users should research. > Investors optimize profit, not moral values. What is disadvantage to you well could be an advantage to an investor. Current bitcoin (and likely almost all of the decentralized crowd) is unusable on large scale. Numbers taken from Ripple's site, could be biased: BTC does 3 to 6 transactions per second, ETH 15 tps, XRP 1.5K tps (and claims to scale to Visa's 50K tps). Too bad the Bitcoin founding father(s) didn't think about this outcome and code the solution.
Re: Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:19:48 + "J.R. Jones" wrote: > It's viewed as "the banker's coin" and run by them. > It's everything cryptocurrency started out against. yep. I should have said a successful attack at the 'marketing' level. One could argue the "crypto market" has decided that ripple is oh so amazing, and "the market" is always right. Or, more realistically, the market is manipulated and 'traders' behave like sheep... > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, 11:16 juan wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 03:12:19 -0500 > > grarpamp wrote: > > > > > > What should investors know before investing in XRP? > > > > > > well...ripple looks like a successful attack on bitcoin, at > > least for the time being > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
It's viewed as "the banker's coin" and run by them. It's everything cryptocurrency started out against. On Sat, Dec 30, 2017, 11:16 juan wrote: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 03:12:19 -0500 > grarpamp wrote: > > > > What should investors know before investing in XRP? > > > well...ripple looks like a successful attack on bitcoin, at > least for the time being > > > > >
Re: Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 03:12:19 -0500 grarpamp wrote: > > What should investors know before investing in XRP? well...ripple looks like a successful attack on bitcoin, at least for the time being
Ripple reaches second place by marketing capitalization
> What should investors know before investing in XRP? There's this thing called ethical investing where investors don't invest in shit that harms people, the environment, slave labor, abortion, whatever they don't like. Given other fine cryptocurrencies and investment strategies, this one would probably top the list that any freedom, crypto anarcho, libertarian, decentralist, etc would want to avoid... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zaplx/ripple_ceo_says_bitcoin_as_currency_unneeded_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7mzcld/reminder_ripple_xrp_is_centralized_and_they_can/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7mz60n/ripple_is_not_mineable_it_is_a_centralized/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7mykhw/okay_this_ripple_shit_is_ridiculous_we_need_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bt2yu/ripple_is_the_furthest_thing_from/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/6bi958/ripple_was_100_premined_stellar_was_97_premined/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/332qnf/ripple_a_centrallycontrolled_entity_with_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ezeil/exposing_the_ripple_scam/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34zj70/fincen_fines_ripple_labs_inc_in_first_civil/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/33fubn/ripple_freezes_1m_in_user_funds_time_to_remove_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/268d9d/founder_of_ripple_is_announcing_he_is_dumping_his/ https://wiki.ripple.com/index.php?title=Freeze&oldid=9352
