Jump to content

TiffanyHayden

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    857
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  1. My comments weren't aimed at David Schwartz. I've been away from the forum for awhile and I was disappointed to see this thread. Do you enjoy watching personal attacks launched at me? I don't. It's painful and dehumanizing and almost unbearable at times.
  2. XRP vs Bitcoin They aren't competitive, they are complimentary. Believing otherwise, especially with an angry mob carrying pitchforks, only slows down progress. Tribalism is a dead end.
  3. Why would you give weight to somebody's opinion of XRP who doesn't even know the name is XRP?
  4. XLM has a different code base than XRP. BitcoinCash supporters didn't want Bitcoin's code altered with anything Blockstream related, so the fork happened before Segwit was injected into the code. BitcoinCash is the original Bitcoin code sans the Segwit and with the arbitrary cap removed. Roger was one of the FIRST investors of Ripple. All of this contention has been manufactured.
  5. TiffanyHayden

    Hello! I'm the 'Head of Community' @ Ripple :-)

    Hi Claire. Welcome! (Please don't forget about the financially excluded who live here!)
  6. TiffanyHayden

    Lawson Baker: XRP is a security. Ripple is the issuer.

    My standard reply:
  7. TiffanyHayden

    Lawson Baker: XRP is a security. Ripple is the issuer.

    Coinbase is a very large holder of Ethereum, if anyone didn't know.
  8. TiffanyHayden

    Lawson Baker: XRP is a security. Ripple is the issuer.

    I am baffled why any of this is a surprise to people. I made a few comments on Twitter. It's easier just to copy and paste them. I hope you don't mind. From January: I can't say that I begrudge Coinbase for any of their decisions. They are looking out for their best interest, which is what businesses do. It's more disappointing that we as a community have let Coinbase get this large. Why haven't others stepped up to the plate?
  9. TiffanyHayden

    Lawson Baker: XRP is a security. Ripple is the issuer.

    I haven't gone through his whole series of tweets. He tagged me, and I replied to the first thing that caught my eye. I've already stumped him. He had to resort to quoting Jimmy Song from a few weeks when I had backed Jimmy into a corner for claiming that Ripple can "steal people's ripples," lol. I demanded he tell me how and Jimmy's final answer (that I had to pry out of him) was the config files on Ripple's website, hahahaha. If Lawson is waiting for Jimmy to help him out so he can reply back to me intelligently, he's going to be in for a looooong wait! (I like Lawson, btw. For whatever that's worth.)
  10. TiffanyHayden

    Craig Wright Boasts about BCH, David Schwartz Comments

    Hey stranger! I was doing a search on the forum and noticed this thread. I wrote a quick blogpost last night that you might find interesting: https://tiffanyhayden.blog/2018/04/04/craig-wright-and-ripple-weird/
  11. If this is true, the state of NY actually received $2.2 billion under a state forfeiture law and New York was designated a victim of BNP's sanctions violations, allowing $1.05 billion to be designated as restitution and reparations to the state. http://kdal610.com/news/articles/2014/jul/30/exclusive-cuomo-intervened-in-bnp-deal-to-get-1-billion-more-for-ny-state-fund/ EDIT: Better link. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-cuomo-exclusive/exclusive-cuomo-intervened-in-bnp-deal-to-get-1-billion-more-for-ny-state-fund-idUSKBN0FZ2L720140731 You want me to verify my thoughts? Or you're wondering if anybody else has the same concerns? http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=ndjlepp
  12. And by preserved I mean that I think criminal charges were avoided, despite the blatant violation of economic sanctions, entirely to protect BNP from from the FDIC, which has a right to revoke insurance for engaging in unsafe or unsound practices. I think there are national security issues here too.
  13. So far, I've only found this: Even more unsettling was a comment somebody made that the actual money for the fine would come from shareholders, most being institutional investors such as pension and retirement funds.
  14. What you are describing is called the helping-hand theory. That bad things happen in unregulated markets and the government can counter these bad things and protect people through regulation. Ex: The government will screen new entrants to weed out low-quality and/or fly-by-night operators and that will result in a better outcome. But research shows that this DOESN'T produce better quality goods AND countries with heavier regulation of entry have higher corruption. Entry regulation benefits politicians and bureaucrats. Regulation that is pursued for the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats is described in the grabbing-hand theory. Politicians use regulation to obtain favors -donations and votes. Permits and regulations exist to give politicians the power to deny them or collect bribes for providing them.
  15. There has been so much written about this I don’t even know where to begin. Search for studies about nations with fewer regulations exhibiting lower levels of corruption. There’s really good one that I read awhile back that I am trying to find right now for you. Give me a sec. (In the meantime, here’s the first thing that popped up during my search: http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/restrictive-regulation-is-positively-correlated-to-corruption )
×