Jump to content


Gold Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lucky last won the day on November 19 2016

lucky had the most liked content!

About lucky

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Can you tell us a bit more about this? Does this mean that the Schwartz' stablecoin idea is already implemented in this fork of the code? Any ideas about the timeline and requirements to start using it?
  2. It may be more difficult to distribute $6bn when nobody uses the asset, than distributing $600bn when it is widely adopted. Anyway, distribution of XRP is far less than distribution of BTC, and the difference is that revenue on BTC distribution is wasted on energy and asics, revenue of XRP distribution is used to pay salaries. Novogratz is either a fool or has an agenda to push the "halving will push BTC price up" narrative. To counterweight the other possible (and not unlikely) outcome of the halving: chain death. I think he is a fool.
  3. A decentralized digital asset can only work if the asset is distributed. XRP has no mining process to do that distribution, and for a very good reason: it is inefficient and wasteful. So it has to be distributed by preallocation ("pre-mined"). There is NO other way. The geniuses that created XRP ledger have created a company to do the distribution. All the incentives are aligned: company needs the asset to be distributed (used), and company also wants the asset to be as valuable as possible. To then say: "the company holds a ridiculous amount of XRP" just means you don't understand the whole idea. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY.
  4. The hosting has to be paid, servers have to be paid, and that is not cheap. The only way for monetization to take care of itself is to steal from its users, which is the oldfashioned Silicon Valley way of business. If xSongs succeeds (very unlikely) they will have access to all your content purchases, which of course is worth a lot of money. That's the loot he must be thinking of, when he says monetization will take care of itself. That's what facebook thought, that's what twitter thought, and that is how we got into the mess we are in today. Absolutely dishonest, to present this as a solution to the get the artists paid problem. We're in the process of getting rid of this businessmodel, move towards a business model where people pay for content and services, and cryptocurrency provides a means to do that. I find it very disappointing that a Ripple employee is involved in this travesty.
  5. Coil is not dead, they haven't even started yet. XRP is not a worthless token, and coil has 1 billion of them. This is not about easy money, but doing the things you like to do while getting paid for it. You are a troll.
  6. All that money being poured into xSpring, and all we get is this shitty "let me build something in my spare time" project without a long term vision????? XRP is not suited for consumer payments for content. Something is needed to provide privacy and scalability between the client and the ledger.
  7. Archive.org is sitting on a database that is worth billions and billions, if only there was a way to easily monetize content without advertisements or paywalls...
  8. Coming in 2020: the revenge of Aussie Man Bad.
  9. The abridged model is this: 1) Ripple gets banks to use its payment technology 2..10) read here.
  10. But it isn't. And I am saying this as a techie, and someone who has spend a considerable amount of time on this subject. * if I would pay an artist for uploaded noise with an on-ledger payment, there is no way to reclaim my funds. But there is no distinct line between noise and music, so you need to build a mechanism to deal with this. Already paying the "artist" in an irreversible manner before being able to listen to the music is not a good model to start with. * if someone would upload content for which he does not own the copyrights, there is no way for the copyright owner to claim the funds. Same story here: to deal with this, paying "artists" in an irreversible "too bad, your money is gone" way is not a good starting point to effectively deal with this. * if I would pay an artist with on-ledger xrp, I would give that artist (or scammer) access to my full payment history, due to the lack of privacy on on-ledger payments on xrp ledger, caused by the fact that it is an account based system, and not uxto based. Your XRP wallet address thereby acts as a super cookie of which Zuckerberg and his buddies are wet-dreaming about. If you think ordinary cross site tracking cookies are evil (they are), then a wallet cookie is a thousand times worse. For that reason only, the xrp ledger is not only unsuitable for paying for content, it is unsuitable for consumer payments in general. Transparency in cross-border and inter-bank payments: good. Transparency in consumer payments: bad. It weakens the already weak position of consumers in relation to number crunchers in Silicon Valley, a.k.a. Big Data. Your music preference (Bach, arab music or rap?) tells more about you than you think. Combine that data with movie and article purchases, and Big Data can fingerprint your personality better than your own mother. They can and therefore will use that against you. * the 1500 transactions per second capacity of the XRP ledger is a real issue for this usecase. Assuming that the ledger would not be exclusively used for music content, but also for video, images, articles, and the cross border stuff that Ripple is developing, let's be very generous and say that 300 transactions per second can be dedicated to paying for music. That means that if each listening user will make a payment every 3 minutes, the platform can support up to 54,000 simultaneous users. If only 1% of the 217 million spotify users would tune into xSongs, the required number of transactions would exceed 40 times that amount. * paying a single account for a song does not really solve paying musicians fairly. In the current music distribution systems, including spotify, part of the payment is paid to the composer, part to the performing artist, part to the tax office, and part to the platform. That's four beneficiaries at each payment, but lets be generous and at least double the required number of payments in the calculation above, reducing the number of simultaneous listeners to 25,000. That's a joke. And mind you, that number of listeners will have a very heavy burden on the validators of the xrp ledger network (which is designed to solve a real problem). For bad reasons only, see above. * paying the full amount for a song in advance is outdated. What kind of a benefit is that for the listener? Why not let users pay per half a minute? Multiply the number of transactions by six. * paying only a single performer and a single composer is outdated. What kind of improvement is that over the current system? Why not allow authors of copyrighted work define a list of creators, and define a certain percentage of royalties per creator? Again multiply the required number of transactions for that with the average number of people that collaborate to create a song, say 5. So, all in all, xSongs is a lazy "Silicon Valley way of thinking" solution to the "get musicians paid" problem, and it is not a solution at all. You need a buffer between users and the on-ledger payments, a buffer that provides privacy, refunds, multi-ownership, and scalability. Besides many other things that such a platform would need to make it work well. I've spend the last couple of years creating that, and that is why it annoys me that someone thinks they can solve that problem in a week. It annoys me even more in this case, because I would expect the person that thinks that, to better understand the scope of the problem he is dealing with, and to better understand what usecases XRP is good for, and for what it is not, and why.
  11. This sentence illustrates that the author has no idea what it takes to actually build a platform that "allows anyone..". Payments is just one of the problems to solve, before you can call it a platform that can fulfill this promise. And he did not even solve that problem with his flimsly "idea" at all. On chain XRP ledger transactions, with its limitation of 1500 transactions per second and lack of privacy, are unsuitable to be used for micropayments for content.
  12. I don't think this is spam at all. If you look at the transactions, you see many transactions that pay well over the minimum transaction fee. Here's one that burned 0.01 XRP. This means that the sender wants his transaction go through, and is prepared to pay a higher fee to ensure this. A spammer would not do that. 40 tps at 0.01 xrp would cost him one million xrp per month. Still small change in comparison to costs and fees of legacy infrastructure. I think this is legitimate testing of the ledger, for real world usage. Maybe a bank or group of banks testing with it, maybe polysign.io doing tests, maybe an exchange or group of exchanges. Maybe something is already live even, and what we're seeing is real world use of something that we don't yet know about. Either way, the only way to convince FI's and banks that the XRP ledger can handle real world load, not just speculator and hobby usage, is to actually demonstrate this. That is why I am very pleased with this increase of tps. Hobby users with their validator below their desk being forced out is part of growing up and entering enterprise-grade utility. We've seen the same development with the Internet. And I am old enough to remember hearing the same arguments from people advocating against professionalizing the business, clutching to the romantic yet misguided vision of everybody including their grandparents running their own mailserver, nameserver, nntp server and webserver in their basement. You would not be able to read what I wrote here, if it weren't for the efforts and risk-taking of countless corporations that have made this possible. From cpu manufacturing to enabling a functional power-grid, and enabling a global functional Internet through massive data exchanges, and transatlantic cables costing billions of dollars: massive undertakings only possible through the process of people organizing themselves into corporations and getting things done. Similarly, the open and low-cost payment infrastructure that is now being created, and will be accessible and affordable for everyone in the world to use, will be made possible by entrepreneurs taking risks, investing their own time and money in it, and convincing others to participate in their endeavor. I am strongly convinced that the developments that are set in motion, with incentives so well aligned, are unstoppable, and that those at the sideline that are anti-entrepreneurship and anti-capitalist (yet don't have any better idea themselves: communism has failed) will not be able to prevent that.
  13. Invested interest (from different angles) in this project to succeed, and putting my money where my mouth is.
  • Create New...