• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I am not referring only to this thread, but also to various comments in the forum since the announcement. On the other hand, it's fine that everyone does their own research if they want, but what I see more questionable is to create a public debate that emphasizes the link between one specific entity and its alleged Ripple accounts.
  2. It is not so much about the information being traceable on a public ledger, but about persecutory attitudes that can be disturbing at a time when ripple is still at an early stage of implementation.
  3. I really do not understand this obsession with locating the addresses. It's somewhat pathological and might do more harm than anything else. If they wanted to make it public, they would.
  4. Sure, but what I try to show is that XRP supply (in relation to its price) is not as large as it is often said. We are talking about a single bank. Imagine tens or hundreds of banks operating on the network. I think in those circumstances the price of XRP should be MUCH higher.
  5. Well, I know it sounds very optimistic, but to a certain extent mathematics does not lie. If you want to bridge... say $5M, you need to "buy" about 800M XRP (at today's price). Am I wrong? $5M / 0.0063 =~ 800M XRP
  6. And a wild calculation: if only 10% of that volume were bridged through XRP at today's price, that would require about 800M XRP a day.
  7. A clear attempt to further damage XRP's image. Shameful.
  8. That's it! MUDA
  9. I admit that I myself have reacted somewhat frivolously to the report publication, but it was because of the disappointment of the moment. Many of the participants in the forum have been following the evolution of Ripple and XRP since its inception, and perhaps time has been undermining the initial expectations, which were probably too high. Beyond empty, disproportionate and also unfair criticisms, my interpretation is that what transcends outside door is mostly uncertainty, inconcretion, indefinite time frames and endless waiting. Anyway, I have no doubt that we are here because we truly believe XRP have a chance to disrupt banking industry. Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond.
  10. I assure you that I was looking for the link to the full report when I first read it.
  11. Just to clarify, what I mean is that the name RCL (Ripple Consensus Ledger) would be now more linked to Ripple, Inc. as a company than to the original concept of Ripple as a credit network, and I'm not sure this is appropriate for a network that aims to be open, distributed and universal.
  12. To my knowledge, RCL has embarked on a path that will result in its complete independence from Ripple's original concept. The true implementation of that concept is now ILP, and XRP is no longer an indispensable part of it (although it is potentially advantageous). So what do you think? Do you believe that XRP and RCL should be renamed so that their names stop alluding to Ripple?
  13. We all know the theory quite well, and RCL is a wonderful technology and XRP is supposed to remove the need of nostro accounts and all that stuff, but XRP has no chance to suceed as a really useful asset if nobody wants to buy it. Its image has been badly damaged along the path both from inside and from outside, and its demand is almost inexistent today. Even for more nonsense, after its launch on Bitstamp the volume seems to have decreased. It's just crazy. My main doubt as regards XRP today is if it's too late to restore its image and if there will ever be a real demand, because that's the central point to fulfill its role as a bridge currency. XRP should receive strong support which provides confidence and ultimately induces people to buy it.
  14. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2017/html/sp170116.en.html