Greeny Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Anyone ever wonder how often Jed visits XRPCHAT.com, probably under some different alias, just to see how much hate there is toward him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmbartley Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 I misunderstood this to mean that Max Entropy was leaving the community... fd67890 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trickery Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 37 minutes ago, cmbartley said: I misunderstood this to mean that Max Entropy was leaving the community... I thought the same thing, maybe he just can't keep away from what he knows is a winning thing and feels his job of trashing Ripple is a long term hodl. Ripple-Stiltskin, LetHerRip and fd67890 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTxrPP Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Max Entropy said: @JoelKatz Well, if you have met 'investors' then you will know they are a different bred of animal. Not all, but most from my experience you would not take home to meet the family. I have experience with Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and others. I think we will agree, that given the concerns that I itemized in my post, that Ripple now has a problem. In my opinion, and I have clearly stated this many times... Ripple is eating nobodies lunch today. Ripple has pivoted several times because of this. Stellar, I hope, will bring pressure to bear on the banks. Centralized banking is a relatively new phenomenon. Hopefully, their role will be diminished - globally. Peer to peer money, like Napster, is now possible. BitTorrent is now a commonly accepted protocol. Banks will need to accept this and play a different role. -- I will return - when Stellar XLM/STR challenges XRP's valuation. Who could have foreseen this. If Stellar enables peer to peer, then they will win. Unless it is/was forbidden in the contracts, Ripple's clients can make the P2P apps using Ripple's tech and XRP if there is a market demand for it--Ripple has been clear about their current mission and what they are trying to achieve. Just because you go P2P doesn't mean you'll be successful--how's Napster today? Why must Ripple eat someone else' lunch in order to win? Are you sure Ripple is playing a zero-sum game? The folks at Ripple have been quite clear and vocal that they view XRP as 'currency agnostic' , a bridge asset; a tool that will (if successful) bring the world closer together--Ripple is going for the Win-win. But what you are saying is that someone has got to lose in order to win...hmmm... The only way these other techs or coins "beat" XRP is by artificial means that are derived by comparing market cap, per unit price, % gain ytd, etc..At the end of the day, do these facades really matter if they are not doing what Ripple is doing? Peer to peer is no guarantor of success. But perhaps your in luck, Brad has stated that Ripple will shift focus towards consumer facing products in roughly 5 years. Patience and perhaps you'll get what you wish for. FUDFatigue, fd67890, Amigo and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Ripple-n-Time said: I've been reading on this forum for a long time. Call it crawling before walking. Max Entropy has a distinct "connection" to Jed, if it's not him directly, he's not far removed. He has way too much knowledge of the past inner workings of Ripple to not be. That being said, great thread. I'd like to see continued dialogue between Joelkatz and Max Enteopy going forward. And Mercury, I'd take you up on your whale challenge but the member that said "for the same reason whales don't drive their lambos thru the ghetto".......he's spot on...? Cheers all and best to Ripple Max Entropy is not Jed, nor do I think that he's anyone close to Jed. He's a person with software developing background who often takes a strong stance on different topics. I find myself disagreeing with him ~97% of the time, but I suppose many of us are here to mold our opinions through discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistatee2000 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 57 minutes ago, default said: Max Entropy is not Jed, nor do I think that he's anyone close to Jed. He's a person with software developing background who often takes a strong stance on different topics. I find myself disagreeing with him ~97% of the time, but I suppose many of us are here to mold our opinions through discussions. Max is Max. His views don't often appeal to many on this forum, but what he does is provide the perspective for discussion that keeps us grounded. This is a really interesting thread with notable contributions. We should seek to counter or agree with Max's contributions but not criticise the individual. In this instance Max I can't say that I agree with you but I always welcome your view. ThomasTheTGV, TiffanyHayden, GiddyUp and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Morty said: I don't think any attempt at an internet level protocol like stellar or ripple can be widely adopted with a for profit company owning the majority of the tokens. This was Morty quoting Jed. I find this an interesting thought. He's probably right here. But, skipping the fact that Stellar is a for profit company as well (with smoke and mirrors)... ... and also skipping the fact that the Internet level protocol Ripple is pushing, and has a very high chance of being adopted, does not have any tokens (ILP), ... the next question is: what is a better strategy to make your tokens worldwide desirable, and increase in value: 1. selling the majority of tokens for the highest possible price (and invest back into your product), or 2. giving them away for free, and hoping your computer geneated strings magically become valuable? The fact that Jed still seems to think it's the second, is bad news for XLM long term holders (if these people exist at all), considering 93% of Stellar tokens have yet to be distributed. And the fact that Jed does not seem to understand what "Internet level protocol" means, is bad news for XLM holders as well. It's pretty clear to me that the brains did not leave Ripple. Edited October 28, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrique11 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) Ripple was based on Ryan Fuggar's concept and implementation of an exchange network based around people not financial institutions. When Ripple Labs (currently Ripple), began there was not a clear direction initially of only pursuing financial institutions as a business model. I believe a big part of Jed's decision to start Stellar was because Ripple had gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction with his vision for Ripple after Chris became CEO and he felt betrayed. It's not fun to lose control of your own company as a founder and CEO. Yes, it's common...I've seen it myself at a start-up. As a condition of receiving VC capital, you as a CEO often have to agree to ceding majority control of your company, as this way the board members have leverage to oust you if they don't see eye to eye with your vision or as part of the agreement the VC people that have given your company necessary funding to continue your company have enough sway on the board to oust you. I don't think Jed is a "saint" at all. His girlfriend Kim was involved somehow at Ripple Labs and Ripple Labs I believe even had some investment or partnership with her company Simple Honey, if I recall correctly. Neither side is perfect. Humans are humans, unfortunately. If you think humans are good at consensus, then please explain all the forks in this space ;P Edited October 28, 2017 by enrique11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, enrique11 said: If you think humans are good at consensus, then please explain all the forks in this space ;P What forks illustrate, is that at the end of the day, human concensus is the only thing that matters when it comes to valuation of computer generated tokens. And because of this, Ripple's concensus model is better suited to efficiently automate this process than Proof Of Waste. At this point in time, now privatized money is out of the bag and has advanced beyond point of no return, POW is unneccesary hocus pocus that may be able to secure double spending, at a very high cost, but does not provide any security to the future value of a token. That's the job of people. If you are looking which platform has the best chance of surviving, look at the platform where there is the most agreement about its direction, and has the best procedures to preserve that level of agreement in a sustainable way. Ripple is a clear winner here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fd67890 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, lucky said: Ripple's concensus model is better suited to efficiently automate this process than Proof Of Waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amigo Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) Really interesting read, thanks @Max Entropy, @JoelKatz, and all others!! Really got some good additional views on this matter!! Like in many debates, there will be truths in many views, both on the rational as on the emotional side. And history can explain a lot on where we are today. At the same time I do think people should not drenge themselves in the past too much: Ripple grew to where it is now, and will be decided upon by those who work there or are in control positions at this moment. They will all be tremolendously motivated and skilled to take Ripple to the next era. To all others that once worked there, still are or just feel connected for another reason but would have prefered another direction at some point: don't stay in the past for too long, accept how things move sometimes, and forgive the other for decisions or actions that hurted you. Not forgiving ends in being only a burden for yourself. Enjoy life as it's short already. Edited October 28, 2017 by Amigo Skippy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrique11 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, lucky said: What forks illustrate, is that at the end of the day, human concensus is the only thing that matters when it comes to valuation of computer generated tokens. And because of this, Ripple's concensus model is better suited to efficiently automate this process than Proof Of Waste. At this point in time, now privatized money is out of the bag and has advanced beyond point of no return, POW is unneccesary hocus pocus that may be able to secure double spending, at a very high cost, but does not provide any security to the future value of a token. That's the job of people. If you are looking which platform has the best chance of surviving, look at the platform where there is the most agreement about its direction, and has the best procedures to preserve that level of agreement in a sustainable way. Ripple is a clear winner here. Yes, I agree with you on most aspects, but POW is not as wasteful as people believe. They only think it is because when most people think of POW, bitcoin first comes to mind and the power-hungry ASIC miners that currently dominate bitcoin mining but didn't always. POW has become more efficient with time and IOTA plans to eventually incorporate POW ASIC hashing capability into production IOT chips...these chips they claim will be minimally power consumptive, almost indistinguishable in power consumption from their normal counterparts and yet IOTA will still be able to provide fee-free transactions. I'm really curious to see how efficient their ASIC-enabled chips will be. Edited October 28, 2017 by enrique11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fd67890 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, enrique11 said: Yes, I agree with you on most aspects, but POW is not as wasteful as people believe. They only think it is because when most people think of POW, bitcoin first comes to mind and the power-hungry ASIC miners that currently dominate bitcoin mining but didn't always. POW has become more efficient with time and IOTA plans to eventually incorporate POW ASIC hashing capability into production IOT chips...these chips they claim will be minimally power consumptive, almost indistinguishable in power consumption from their non-POW counterparts and yet IOTA will still be able to provide fee-free transactions unlike bitcoin's. I'm really curious to see how efficient their ASIC-enabled chips will be. This is pretty slick biz model from IOTA, create a problem that didn't exist and then sell the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrique11 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, hesque said: This is pretty slick biz model from IOTA, create a problem that didn't exist and then sell the solution. Well, in any case, hopefully we'll get definitive answer from IOTA in the not too distant future to either support their claim or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanaas Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 12 hours ago, nikb said: @Max Entropy, the only response I can muster is in the form of an emoticon: You even can reuse that for most of his posts ... Montoya, fd67890 and SimpleLife 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now