dik

I think that eventually, digital assets will be used by anyone that wants real-time transactions over the Internet of small amounts and low costs, globally. I also think eventually small transactions will replace large transactions. Money will move in small packets, in the opposite direction of the services that are provided. For software to be able to handle money as truly data, it can't have a counter party, as the counterparty introduces a "well it depends". So anyone who has assets in a silo'd network, will have to convert those assets to universal digital asset, in order to participate in the global IoV, either knowingly or unknowingly (as part of an automated process). So question remains: ok, digital assets will be the liquid between payment networks, but why XRP? Answer to that it that it is the cheapest, has the best reach into all markets, the best liquidity, provides 3 second transaction finality, and is the most energy efficient. I don't believe the success of XRP solely depends on the success of xRapid. It depends on whether indeed my assumption is right that we absolutely need decentralized digital assets for the next version of the web. If that is true, the digital asset with the lowest friction will win by definition. As far as I can see, that is XRP.

Assuming network A and B, and network A member Bob needs to pay network B member Alice money. Bob buys XRP for network A dollars, sends XRP to (the jurisdiction of) Alice who then sells XRP for network B dollars. Or possibly with agent X in between, who takes care of the exchange and transport part, so that neither Bob or Alice ever have to deal with anything than their local network currency. This requires liquidity of dollar A / XRP and dollar B / XRP. This depends on the market demand of members of A and B transacting together. Remember: in the digital space there is not (yet, and possbily never) "a single dollar": digital dollars are not fungible. There is only a promise by a bank to pay you a dollar. One banks' promise is not simply swappable 1:1 with another banks promise. In fact: none of the banks actually have the dollars they've promised to people, and some banks are in worse state in that aspect than others. That is where assets that do not have a counter party come into play. One XRP in jurisdiction A is guaranteed 1:1 swappable with one XRP in jurisdiction B.

It may be a competitor for RippleNet, but not for XRP (which, as a universal digital asset, does not depend on ILP to bridge networks).

No court has ruled on bananas being securities, yet they are sold as bananas everywhere. Is that misleading too?

Does this network create a level playing field and advance interoperabitliy between payment networks? Yes? good, it will enable deflationary native digital asset XRP to compete with inflationary (unbacked fractional reserve) USD IOU's. No? Then not a competitor but another walled garden that needs to be bridged to connect to other walled gardens. XRP is being positioned to best cross the bridges.

My point is that the majority of talented content creators are currently creating their content for free, while facebook, twitter etc are earning all the revenue from their work. THEY will switch to a platform where they are being paid for their talent, once it becomes simple to route payments directly from reader to author. Leaving advertising platforms with only garbage. Then you will switch too.

You must have spend at least 15 minutes writing that article. How much revenue did that create for you? Zero. You may not care. Other talented writers will. You are being robbed now. Web payments will change that completely. The net result is that you will be paying LESS for better content.

Sure, huuuuge fan, yet has somehow missed the memos, billboards and broadcasts that the token is currently named XRP, and the company Ripple. Also missed the Moneygram deal. troll, not a fan.

5bn XRP delivered to R3 members?

In XRP ledger you can define your network. Your network starts with your own UNL. So you can simply only include validators that agree with you, and there's your 80% majority. You just won't be able to transact on chain with the other guys. It surprises me that nobody has done it yet, I think it is a good idea. It will illustrate two things: 1. forking XRP Ledger is super easy, it is designed that way. 2. making the market believe your fork is valuable is very hard. 3. unless you've got a really better idea. which this probably isnt. but if it is: all the better! then it will be illustrated how easy it is to migrate to a better version of itself. as designed.

after the next bullrun, coil can buy netflix. or just take over its role as content producer.

It is not. It is based on 80% consensus among validators. Now it can be argued that validators will follow Ripple (when voting on amendments), but that's not because of how much they own, but rather because of most people that run validators believe in their leadership. Validators can stop following Ripple (and exclude them from the UNL) with the snap of a finger the moment they make a bad decision, whether they own 50bn XRP or not. In a proof of state system, that scenario is not possible.

So instead of adressing my point that BTC is nor at all 'fully private', you add more nonsense. BTC an exchange receives was BTC yesterday on another private wallet, or on another exchange. Traceable all the way back to malicious transactions. It can not be privately swapped to another currency, that always happens on an exchange (which can be fined itself for aiding in money laundering) on which you leave traces of your identity. Ultimately those traces will lead to your garage with expensive car in it, that you can't explain how you bought it. Anyway you're too annoying, I have to block you, sorry. You're by far the most annoying person on this entire forum.

Peak nonsense. It's time!