XRP Too Slow And Centralized For Banks: Nano Founder

[deadestfish]

https://cryptobriefing.com/xrp-adoption-banks-nano/

[XRP-JAG]

Retards!

[NightJanitor]

Filed under:  "Attack [market leader], promote [own solution]."

ETA:  Curious that he's not attacking BTC, BCH, ETH, etc, etc.

Edited December 21, 2018 by NightJanitor
Needed a smile.

[Rey]

5 minutes ago, deadestfish said:

https://cryptobriefing.com/xrp-adoption-banks-nano/

Wow, impressive how much wrong information regarding XRP and Ripple has been collected.

If the founder of Nano really said the things as stated in the article, he actually has no idea whatsoever about the things that are necessary to accomplish the paradigm shift and changes in the world of payments as Ripple is doing. Another example of someone who has his focus primarily on tech instead of solving real problems for real customers. Guess he'd better choose a different hobby.

[Trickery]

The purest form of flattery from Colin LeMahieu he may as well have said "we can't compete with Ripple or XRP"

[cryptoxrp]

1 hour ago, deadestfish said:

https://cryptobriefing.com/xrp-adoption-banks-nano/

That people still take the time to read and post this rubbish....

[XRPanda]

1 hour ago, deadestfish said:

https://cryptobriefing.com/xrp-adoption-banks-nano/

I just added some comment on their great article

 

[BrownBear]

/facepalm

[enrique11]

5 hours ago, deadestfish said:

https://cryptobriefing.com/xrp-adoption-banks-nano/

I'm not going bother reading this article...the title already was entertaining enough to warrant a laugh emoticon.

Sometimes you gotta wonder about other people's motivations for saying funny crap.

In fact, I would go further and say, I have to no interest looking further into the Nano "faucetcoin" project after reading this title.

[0083041]

Don't belittle Colin you guys. You're not supposed to make fun of retards.

[Archbob]

That being said, I actually don't think the FOREX market will be easily taken over by any crypto. Even is Susan Athey's paper(she's on Ripple's Board of Directors). She only projects 3%.

 

Remember some of the Forex market is literally people talking up to a forex window and exchanging their dollars for the local dollars. You are never going to use any bridge currency for that.

 

Remittances, I totally expect to be dominated by a company like Ripple.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Archbob

[Dario_o]

This crappy article about Nano shouldn't be in "Press", but in "Alt-Coins"

[Kpuff]

Just commented myself on the article, I brought up the amendment rule in which the 55 or so billion can be taken out of their hands if we feel they are not handling it well. They kept bringing up the centralized argument so yeah I went there. If I stated any wrong information please correct me thanks

[Guest]

Another "banks won't use XRP because Ripple owns too much of it".

• Do these people really think banks would prefer buying truckloads of digital assets on exchanges, without any legal warranties, for an unknown price, instead of buying truckloads OTC from a company that they can negotiate strict terms with, including insurance against hackers?
• Anyone that argues that Ripple owns too much XRP seems to forget that having too much of something can easily be solved (sell, give away or destroy). Having too little of it is a much harder problem.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Guest

[NightJanitor]

2 minutes ago, Kpuff said:

Just commented myself on the article, I brought up the amendment rule in which the 55 or so billion can be taken out of their hands if we feel they are not handling it well. They kept bringing up the centralized argument so yeah I went there. If I stated any wrong information please correct me thanks

Cool.  Go ahead and post the name of your validator node that'll be proposing that amendment so that all the sane validators can permanently remove it from their UNL's.

The amendments people try to propose will be very revealing about the values of those proposing them.  (I'd imagine a lot of people will flame out in public doing that stuff!)

"Amendment 99:  Bob said or did something that I don't like and I'm so mad that I want a majority to censor Bob's transactions on the XRPL.  Who's with me? ---Signed, Alice"

Watching the trust graph adjust would be rather interesting.  This is what all the people who understand "slippery slope" love about the decentralized allocation of UNL trust.

Even in the case where, say, a nation-state actor was running a validator, there's still some rather robust resiliency, in that any entity can be a validator and trust is adjustable.