Max Entropy

Member
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This is either Garlinhouse or Larsen... and it is a snide way to get advertizing space. They did it, when Swift announced last week a new version, maybe 2.0... and now with Coinbase. Armstrong will see this as raining on his parade. This does not look professional.
  2. This is a poorly written article. :-)
  3. Hi Nur, I know a little about MaidSafe, but have not engaged technically with it. Not sure if the re-write in Rust is complete. They have been quiet. I have been avoiding the 'alt coins' for apps, as I expect they can not win in a global sense. I could be wrong and miss an adoption of an alt coin by an industry player, which could catapult that coin into a leading role. I have been surprised at the adoption rate of Zcash... annonimity is clearly a big deal. Similarly, with Dash, as I think their voting model works for master nodes, plus these nodes are remunerated. Bitcoin suffers in these guards. Currently, side chains and lightning networks; are Ethereum are the only innovative spaces in the crypto space, save the alt coin sand boxes. I think Ripple needs to enable similar means of engaging with developers.
  4. Hi T84... i do know the fees associated with Azure, and they are essentially free of charge. I have five (5) nodes globally running 24/7 for less than 200$ monthly, communications intensive, for the cloud side of a mobile app. I consider that to be free of charge. Taken, to the next level, if you run an IPFS node in a cell phone it is, then it is actually free of charge. So, I would categorically disagree with your assertion. The Internet is changing. It is how we integrate crypto into this new Internet is still to be determined.
  5. Lastly, with regard to Ethereum, I think they have a fundamental flaw, in that, they view the network as a computational engine that you must pay for. This seems incongruent to me. Computing is now essential free of charge today, so why would an application developer choose a platform that requires computation fees. It is from this type of perspective that Ripple avoids this problem. Computing should be free of charge, but content, where appropriate, should be 'paid for' with a crypto currency. So I am very interested, platforms that integrate IPFS into crypto currencies. Because, Ripple can transact in any token, then I favour Ripple in this regard.
  6. Inter-Planetary File System is a stunning example of innovation... below Juan gives a talk from 2016 October at the Ethereum Conference in Califronia. I know of no 3rd party developer talking about Ripple. More importantly there are no Ripple development conferences. This is an example of how software hooks into Ethereum will enable yuuge innovation. Using IPFS, we can get rid of DNS, get rid of hosted web content and provide atomic level of security for a fully distributed web. This is not happening in Ripple, and it is not happening in California. It is happening in Switzerland. The talk is insightful. You can get a sense that a new internet is emerging... where content is secure and content authors can be paid. It would make sense for Ripple to open a development lab to focus on technology vectors such as IPFS. Doing so, build in XRP as the transactional layer for say, the IPFS FileCoin. IPFS nodes could run in cell phones. Extending this, I could imagine, Trump asking 21's Balaji - why is China dominating in Bitcoin mining and therefore the world's crypto transaction processing business. Trump, with a US central focus would be seeking to change this. 21 and and Qualcomm would be on board. Ripple should have a plan to engage in the online transaction processing business. I do not see this in their banking centric view of the world. Lastly, as I see it, it is only Ripple that promotes Ripple. In the Ethereum space, the developers promote the Ethereum technology. So Ripple, needs to find a way to change this.
  7. There are some good comments here. I read a bit of what @hypostatization referenced and I include the abstract below. -- Abstract: A bona fide currency functions as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account, but bitcoin largely fails to satisfy these criteria. Bitcoin has achieved only scant consumer transaction volume, with an average well below one daily transaction for the few merchants who accept it. Its volatility is greatly higher than the volatilities of widely used currencies, imposing large short-term risk upon users. Bitcoin’s daily exchange rates exhibit virtually zero correlation with widely used currencies and with gold, making bitcoin useless for risk management and exceedingly difficult for its owners to hedge. Bitcoin prices of consumer goods require many decimal places with leading zeros, which is disconcerting to retail market participants. Bitcoin faces daily hacking and theft risks, lacks access to a banking system with deposit insurance, and it is not used to denominate consumer credit or loan contracts. Bitcoin appears to behave more like a speculative investment than a currency. -- The author is correct, but the conclusions or implications of re: Bitcoin or crypto, miss the mark for any reader of this 23 page document. The document was written, by a 'banker' for a 'banker'. This would like asking a 'telco' for communications guidance re: the Internet. Telco's are operations people and good at it, but they do not innovate. It is the rate of innovation that will determine the outcome in crypto space. As we are talking about 'software', we need to evaluate crypto network viability in terms of software 'reach' and 'applications pull'. Reach, I consider to be related to geography; business domains; devices; and cloud platforms. While applications pull, is considered to be levels of adoption readiness by user communities. Notice, that I have left the banks OUT of this approach. Just as, I would leave the Telco's out of a discussion of the Internet. The banks, like the Telco's function as network operators or gateways to services. The banks, like the Telco's serve as on ramps to the financial network, just as dial up modem pools 'on ramped' Internet users. I see Coinbase and Blockchain as the equivalent of modem pool operators of the past. They on ramp. Reach... Reach today, is a problem with most of the cryptos. Innovations seem to be coming from the alt coins. The network 'software hooks' that would enable innovation are not generally available in Bitcoin and Ripple, The exception is Ethereum. I mention this because, developers can not easily innovate/develop around Bitcoin or Ripple. [More could be said.] The problem that I see with Ethereum is that the 'computational ether' is expensive to use in applications; and the attack vectors are significant with a Turing complete language. I mention this because, software innovation given the available 'hooks' are limiting reach. Applications Pull... Today, it appears that this space will be dominated by banks contracting with financial consultants, to implement cost saving remittance applications for the banks. Boring... really boring. Where is the future? This space is definitely hot. I understand that Trump has spoken with Balaji of 21.co. I follow 21 as I am interested in what Qualcomm, an investor in 21, will do with mining and distributed transaction processing via the 21 pool. This is a 'hook' that could make a difference. What is cool about Ripple is its ability to settle immediately; to enable consensus groups; to transact in any crypto token. More needs to be done by Ripple to enable developers to innovate around the Ripple network. Today, crypto focus seems to be around speculative on ramping - clustered at 'exchanges' - where day traders go crazy. Boring... What is needed, is an globally informed community of crypto users that can function as early applications adopters or innovation labs. Innovation labs... Innovation labs built around a 'LinkedIn community of users' model, is an effective method of growing out, the reach of the those in the crypto space and the new application concepts. There needs to be a movement away from focus on XRP price. The price is not important today. The problem with Ripple is that they are focused on the banks, and the banks are LAST to innovate. The problem with Bitcoin is that it may have peaked. It is not clear, what Lightning Networks will enable. I am mostly interested in communities of crypto users, as this is where innovation will come from. So building a 'LinkedIn model' of crypto users will provide the space for innovation to occur.
  8. Ripple is sitting on some 65 Billion XRP, plus say, Larsen's and McCaleb's holdings, so maybe 80 Billion in total. I do not see how Ripple can afford to let the price rise, yet. First, Ripple must get a significant portion of the XRP distributed amongst the 'market makers' and other politically vested players, such as, friends of Larry Summers. Only then can the price rise. Said, a different way... Ripple needs to first show that there is sufficient interest in their crypto. I would guess, if they can get the XRP price to say, 1-5 $, then, they need to ensure that their new found partners have the motivation to push the network. the trick will be get gain adoption in their crypto, before, the introduction Lightnging network extensions, as this will slow technology adoption as banks wait and see, while running more evaluations.
  9. Well, that was a useful bit of information re: originators of Ripple. It is easy to wrong, for me, but it drags out additional information more informed sources. Thanks!
  10. Hi Hayden, You are fussing... I don't mean to be 'disrespectful', but it is because you hold different view points, and because you have a particular insight to 'circumstances' that I would consider your, say, weekly thoughts/YouTube videos, to be important. It is precisely, because you have two (2) heads and it would take longer than twelve (12) minutes... that would add value to, say, YouTube channel. My sense, is that you have 'something to say' which is why you are at XRPChat. A more formal, regular and focused forum such as, a regular video series, would add value to you, and to those that would require 12+ seminar series. -- I would not under-estimate Stellar and Jed's approach to technology adoption. He is working with the 'little guys' who, if then can handle the technology, and regulatory side, will push faster than any bank will ever. The money exchangers in say, Singapore or India are the ones who know how to move against the entrenched financial establishment. I remain, not impressed with Ripple's approach of doing 'back channel' business arrangements to secure their technology. For each channel, that Ripple establishes there will be 'side deals' amongst the participants, and I expect that this is where it will get messy. If Stellar can connect, in a peer to peer method with the Bitcoin network, then I would go long on Stellar. I do not see, significant adoption of Stellar gateways, yet.
  11. Hi D-Fault123, I have been in that situation... it is difficult to let go of a company that one creates... So promoting XRP a year or even four (4) months prior to leaving, is for me understandable. At some point, control and direction of the company become the dominant factors, and moving on is the only path.
  12. Hey D-Fault123... You weren't supposed to ,like' my comment. Please stop, blunting my attacks! :-)
  13. Hi D-Fault123, Constructive remarks, is another way of simply framing the discussion. As for, Jed being Ass'ole, you have side stepped your own advice. As I developer, I can imagine that the 'original OpenCoin/Ripple' source code and therefore intellectual property would be solely Jed's. But he needed worker bees to manage other business functions. So overtime when the worker bees, started to diverge from the developer's view of the world, Computing for Good, and focusing on the un-banked, I can imagine their interests were no longer aligned. It would make sense, for Jed to learn from this experience, and move on.
  14. Hi Johnny Walker... well said... re my question. With regard, to Ripple, however, it is a risky undertaking. Management bailed out on the hard decisions... and they only managed to survive because of the technical leadership of Stefan Thomas et al, by making themselves relevant again via InterLedger, after the Ripple Trade fiasco. The problem they now have is that they have lost control of their product. They are in a position to disrupt NO business or market as they are NOT eating anyone's lunch. They are beholden to the banks. Not good. :-)