Jump to content

Tyrell

Member
  • Content Count

    401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Tyrell

  • Rank
    Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Global domination with my android army; and dreaming of electric sheep
  • Country
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Contempt of court" sounds sufficient from the judge as well.
  2. Excellent post. I would only add that I think for most folks $589 is not really serious except possibly in your broadly expanded definition. It was always, at least for me, a playful idea (a cartoon bear, for goodness' sake) and most of the people participating carried with them that sense of play. Some took it completely seriously, but that's their decision. Early in the year I felt like $10-15 was a viable target. I still feel that way. Last year I predicted $ 0.35 -- and was I ever wrong about that. It could be less than $10 or higher, but whatever it will be, it will be. I
  3. He wants me to source that Western Union charges high fees to cover transfers and that Swift is a messaging system? Sorry, I read it that he wants a source that says Ripple products do not provide these services, but I was not arguing that they do not. My argument was about the implication that current parts of the system referred to in a law from 2010 do not provide these services. They do. They just do it inefficiently.
  4. Yes, for many people it is, particularly if $2500 represents most of their wages for a month. Some folks are just scraping by, and any system that will reduce their costs and put more money in their pocket will be welcome relief. Plus the fact that the fees are potentially higher.
  5. I think you may misunderstand me. I am not saying that Ripple's products do not perform these actions. I am saying that other mechanisms currently exist that also cover this issue -- but they are not very efficient so the price ends up being higher to 'cover costs'. As to it being limited to the messaging layer, I take that from the language offered: "in connection with the remittance transfer, a disclosure describing...." This part of the act covers knowledge of the transaction -- it is there to protect consumers, so they can know what they are getting into -- not the actual tran
  6. Isn't that one of the reasons why services like Western Union charge so much? xRapid will do this more efficiently and for far less money, but I don't think remittance providers have been in violation of Dodd-Frank all this time. I have only sent money using Swift cross border a few times, and the fees seemed to be fixed prior to the transaction.
  7. That would imply that an act passed in 2010 provided an impossible situation, a the time, for the banking/remittance industry. I guess I could be reading this completely incorrectly, but this looks like it describes a messaging system. I don't see why xRapid would need to be involved.
  8. Don't think GPI needs to enter into it, isn't this just what Swift does?
  9. Correct, but that was not the context of the argument, which concerned XRP adoption by Coinbase based on its speed and frugality for exchange transfers. It is undeniable that XRP is one of if not the fastest options and it is pretty clearly the cheapest -- for the banking industry and for moving assets from one exchange to another. When it comes to discussing XRP as the global banking choice it simply makes Coinbase look more idiotic. Unless you meant that Coinbase wants to avoid XRP because they hate banks. Which also makes them look like idiots as far as I can tell.
  10. I offered counter-arguments to them 'protecting their BTC'. That was the entirety of the point I made. So, whatever.
  11. I'm not proposing a theory, I don't have one. Even the idea that they have big BTC holdings doesn't add up because they can dump what they have over time and load up on XRP. It isn't as though we haven't seen others dump BTC in large quantities before. Sorry, but I don't see having big BTC holdings as a likely explanation. Coinbase is not acting rationally if they recognize XRP as a big player in future, so there must be some other reason. It's either a philosophical/personal issue or they simply don't think XRP will be worth much in future. Egos get in the way of rational decision m
  12. Never encountered any of that. I've used ETH several times as bridge and it was relatively fast compared to BTC, which often took 6 or more hours, but also much cheaper. I understand that LTC is equally fast and cheap. I am not comparing them to XRP, but they are worlds better than BTC. And Coinbase adopted them quite a while ago. Sorry, but I do not think that is the reason that Coinbase made its decisions. It could be one factor, but they adopted other options that bit into BTC as the prime base transfer option, and they did it many months ago.
  13. Um, Yeah, except that Coinbase lists ETH and LTC, both of which can serve as a bridge currency in just the same way. Granted that Coinbase has BTC set as the first thing you see, that would not change with XRP adoption. And ETH and LTC are dramatically faster than BTC, which is why anyone with more than a passing interest has already use them instead of BTC to transfer to other exchanges. So, as much as I want to agree with you, I don't agree with you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.