Jump to content
Roborovskii

[Evidence] Dismissing the myth that XRP will not be used by Banks

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Graine said:

Respectfully disagree. RCL is a public ledger with no option for anonymity. If you seek anonymity there are other solutions. I seem to recall transparency was once a key component of RCL for governments and FIs. 

Ripple by nature is pseudo-anonymous and therefore offers some anonymity. You know this, but I thought it was worth mentioning. 

50 minutes ago, Roborovskii said:

Observable in trollbox, reddit, bitcointalk and possibly every other crypto forum out there. Just drop into anyone of them and post a question if people there would think that banks have plans to use XRP.

Of course there are Ripple haters. This is an XRP forum therefore no one would argue that Ripple does not intend for banks to adopt XRP. How likely that is to happen is a completely reasonable conversation, is it not?

Also, for someone so quick to convict others of dodging questions I would like to ask again:
Do you think there's a possibility banks never put their hands directly on XRP? 

Edited by Xi195

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

100%. The only bank apparently on RCL, NBAD, has issued OMR and EGP pending the request of those central banks. Also, despite Bitcoin's disadvantages to XRP it is being widely used for this purpose, even on RCL - see gsr.io. rGSRaLD7YRnJesPv4tc1CGHEyFa8hGYoma

Who said it has to be another blockchain? You can create any IOU on RCL with all of the advantages of XRP except three 1. Limited counter-party risk (which could also be a disadvantage depending on the counter-party) 2. Requirement for transaction fees 3. Incentivized adoption. Point two advantage will disappear soon (according to Ripple) and technically another IOU on RCL could incentivize adoption though this would be difficult. RCL's  nature is the greatest competitor to XRP in my opinion. 

See last sentence above. 

So you do realize that no other blockchain is better suited at this current point in time? If XRP is the native currency, then do let me know how banks across different continents with no common trustlines are going to be bridged?

 

20 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

Also, for someone so quick to convict others of dodging questions I would like to ask again:
Do you think there's a possibility banks never put their hands directly on XRP? 

Let me show you the effect of your question:

1. If 99% of banks use XRP, and 1% of banks don't. Yes there is a possibility that banks (1%) never put their hands directly on XRP. So are you happy with this answer?

2. If the question is phrased instead - do you think there's a possibility that 100% of banks never put their hands directly on XRP. My answer is - No. It is obvious that XRP is the best choice as the bridge currency if they are on RCL. And at the current point in time, there is no other blockchain apart from RCL that is better suited in terms of team expertise and connections.

Edited by Roborovskii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roborovskii said:

So you do realize that no other blockchain is better suited at this current point in time?

No other blockchain is more TECHNICALLY suited at this point in time. Bitcoin has dramatically higher liquidity and is arguably better suited today, because of that.

12 minutes ago, Roborovskii said:

If XRP is the native currency, then do let me know how banks across different continents with no common trustlines are going to be bridged?

You have to assume they have no common trustlines to attempt to make this a compelling argument. The truth is XRP still has SOME counter-party risk. If Ripple folded, RCL and therefore XRP would be at risk. Therefore using XRL on RCL always requires some degree of trust. Also, if the FED issued USD on RCL, why would no one trust it (I'm not trying to go down an "end of the financial system" rabbit hole)? To entertain your artificial circumstance of no trustlines, what about direct, atomic ILP swaps? Two bank ledgers directly swapping tokenized assets. No need for RCL trustlines. 

I'm not sure why you're so aggressive. I'm still curious if you think discussing the odds/likelihood of XRP adoption is a reasonable topic of conversation? If yes, I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss it as FUD.

Edited by Xi195

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tulo said:

No, mine are truths....your are false evidences! you don't see the difference? You are saying lies...I'm saying truth. 

Because the "evidence to dismiss the myth that banks won't use XRP" is exactly as saying "proof that banks will use XRP"....are you so sure to have that proof? I haven't seen any proof and an image of POSSIBLE future use is not proof! It's simple logic my friend...

Please stop the "I'm right/you're wrong" back-and-forth here. It's not constructive and is turning nasty.

Both sides have a truthful point: No, there is no direct evidence of XRP or RCL use by banks beyond some PoCs. Yes, there are clear and public business plans in place for use of XRP markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

No other blockchain is more TECHNICALLY suited at this point in time. Bitcoin has dramatically higher liquidity and is arguably better suited at this point in time, because of that.

1. Bitcoin has higher liquidity but no govt acceptance, and is slow. Could there be a clone of RCL that could take over this role? Yes. Are there any signs of it? No. Is there a team to support this clone of RCL? No.

 

31 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

You have to assume they have no common trustlines to attempt to make this a compelling argument.

2. It is harder to assume that they have a common trustline, than to assume that they don't. Take for example a bank consortium from India wanting to bridge to SBI in Japan. What will be their bridge currency then? BTC? BTC issued by whom? Poloniex? Would India's consortium trust Poloniex? Would SBI? How about then India central bank's IOU as the bridge currency? Would SBI trust that? It is much harder to work out a common trustline than the reverse.

 

31 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

If Ripple folded, RCL and therefore XRP would be at risk. Therefore using XRL on RCL always requires some degree of trust.

3. RCL and XRP on it is open source. It's continuation doesn't necessarily depend on RIpple. Even Vinnie has explained this fact.

 

31 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

 Also, if the FED issued USD on RCL, why would no one trust it (I'm not trying to go down an "end of the financial system" rabbit hole)? To entertain your artificial circumstance of no trustlines, what about direct, atomic ILP swaps? Two bank ledgers directly swapping tokenized assets. No need for RCL trustlines. 

4. FED issued USD on RCL. Would China really want more of that? Or would they prefer a native RCL bridge currency that is open source, which isn't dependent on the whims and fancies of a populist president? Direct ILP swaps? Then there would be no bridge currency in the first place. Who will be the intermediary of trust??

 

31 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

I'm not sure why you're so aggressive. I'm still curious if you think discussing the odds/likelihood of XRP adoption is a reasonable topic of conversation? If yes, I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss it as FUD.

5. It is precisely the FUD and misunderstanding of XRP's adoption that requires clarification and discussion. But instead of discussions to clarify understanding, FUD is simply smeared onto it due to information that is inaccessible. That is why this post was put up in the first place. At least to clear up ONE piece of FUD amongst many others. Do you not think implying "Ripple could steal your XRPs, or even generate more"; is FUD?
 

Edited by Roborovskii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tomxcs said:

Please stop the "I'm right/you're wrong" back-and-forth here. It's not constructive and is turning nasty.

Both sides have a truthful point: No, there is no direct evidence of XRP or RCL use by banks beyond some PoCs. Yes, there are clear and public business plans in place for use of XRP markets.

I will second this eloquent summary and use this opportunity to rescue my future time and recuse myself from the remainder of this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Xi195 said:

I will second this eloquent summary and use this opportunity to rescue my future time and recuse myself from the remainder of this conversation.

@tomxcs was addressing tulo, not you. I have also ceased engaging tulo. 
I have addressed your points above. Do feel free to continue with the discussed points if you can spare the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Roborovskii said:

@tomxcs was addressing tulo, not you. I have also ceased engaging tulo. 
I have addressed your points above. Do feel free to continue with the discussed points if you can spare the time.

Yes, please continue discussion. I don't want to shut it down. Let's just agree on a couple basic facts and stop the aggressive nature of what was being written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roborovskii said:

Oh! You make me so sad and jealous! I only have enough XRP for 2 beers. :sarcastic:
 

Oh dear science guy, perhaps you would read topics clearly next time before presenting invalid arguments, and then proceed to sidestep the replies.

 

Oh, patience, patience dear science boy! Perhaps you could donate a fraction your massive haul of XRP to run a validator and teach me how Ripple can generate more XRP. Clearly there is no FUD in your words. ^_^

I think the point tulo was trying to highlight is is that if ripple decided to create more XRP then they can because all the validators are controlled by Ripple, meaning that it is centralised. he obviously said it is highly unlikely that they will do this but it is a possibility....i dont see where the FUD is in that statement. 

everyone on this forum wants XRP to succeed as we all own/have a vested interest in XRP, but surely we should be able to critique the available information without bias. you have JK saying on a number of occasions that XRP's success is a "long shot" but they are trying their best to make this happen....so I think we should not be under any delusions. i only say this because when i first visited this forum, i was deluded by the "fanboys" posts and grand claims....only later did i get the full picture. i wish i came across some of these "critiqued" posts then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gutsu001 said:

I think the point tulo was trying to highlight is is that if ripple decided to create more XRP then they can because all the validators are controlled by Ripple, meaning that it is centralised. he obviously said it is highly unlikely that they will do this but it is a possibility....i dont see where the FUD is in that statement. 

everyone on this forum wants XRP to succeed as we all own/have a vested interest in XRP, but surely we should be able to critique the available information without bias. you have JK saying on a number of occasions that XRP's success is a "long shot" but they are trying their best to make this happen....so I think we should not be under any delusions. i only say this because when i first visited this forum, i was deluded by the "fanboys" posts and grand claims....only later did i get the full picture. i wish i came across some of these "critiqued" posts then. 

@gutsu001 If you could put a percentage to that unlikely scenario of Ripple modifying their validators and creating more XRP, what would that percentage be? Is it even worth talking about it? Without giving proper weight to possible scenarios, an endless supply of "what ifs" can be generated. What if they decided to take it offline and never use RCL again? What if a staff member went crazy and took down all the validators? What if there was some cleverly hidden malicious code that allowed Brad to take over global economics and declare himself earth's first emperor? Endless.

Yes, we should be able to critique available information. But spending time on such far-fetched possibilities only serves to create FUD and nothing else. Yes FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD is not a lie or an untruth. FUD the emotional and psychological by-product of hearing a lie, a half-truth or an innuendo. In this case it would be an innuendo that "Ripple would create more XRP" or that "Ripple is a scam by greedy bankers". What would new-comers think when such innuendo hits them in the face? Do they have the background knowledge to weigh the differences between the likely and the unlikely? With so much negative misinformation about Ripple already circulating the crypto community space, do we need to continue perpetuating scenarios that are far-fetched?

If centralization is a concern, then fair questions need to be asked instead. Why has decentralization not yet taken place? Is there a shortage of willing participants? Is there a lack of technical expertise in current partners? Is Ripple not yet done with the current code and for ease of implementation want a dominance? Perhaps the stakeholder role for validators are planned to be given to the market-making funds which are still in the works? These questions are a far cry from the innuendos that perpetuate FUD.

Edited by Roborovskii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Roborovskii said:

Yes, we should be able to critique available information. But spending time on such far-fetched possibilities only serves to create FUD and nothing else. Yes FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD is not a lie or an untruth. FUD the emotional and psychological by-product of hearing a lie, a half-truth or an innuendo. In this case it would be an innuendo that "Ripple would create more XRP" or that "Ripple is a scam by greedy bankers". What would new-comers think when such innuendo hits them in the face? Do they have the background knowledge to weigh the differences between the likely and the unlikely? With so much negative misinformation about Ripple already circulating the crypto community space, do we need to continue perpetuating scenarios that are far-fetched?

HYPE is exactly the same as FUD, and this forum is full of HYPE most of the time based on false facts and false "evidences". So what's the difference? If newcomers doesn't have the intelligence and background to understand which news are true or false it is the same for HYPE and for FUD. What do we do, we forbid both?

I'm writing facts, then its up to the people to use the (real) facts in a critic way. It has been years I'm pointing to critical realistic facts of Ripple, not because I want to spread FUD (as I told you I have lots of XRP) but because I want people to behave and think in a critic way and not just as blind cheerleader (as 90% of this forum). And maybe push Ripple with questions to the right points to address in the software.

Edited by tulo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dfault123

I personally don't feel the need to dispel any myths, as I don't have enough information to be certain. I will leave the myth busting to ripple employees, trackable institutional transactions on RCL and the institutional partners. I'm still pretty confident though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Roborovskii said:

@gutsu001 If you could put a percentage to that unlikely scenario of Ripple modifying their validators and creating more XRP, what would that percentage be? Is it even worth talking about it? Without giving proper weight to possible scenarios, an endless supply of "what ifs" can be generated. What if they decided to take it offline and never use RCL again? What if a staff member went crazy and took down all the validators? What if there was some cleverly hidden malicious code that allowed Brad to take over global economics and declare himself earth's first emperor? Endless.

Yes, we should be able to critique available information. But spending time on such far-fetched possibilities only serves to create FUD and nothing else. Yes FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD is not a lie or an untruth. FUD the emotional and psychological by-product of hearing a lie, a half-truth or an innuendo. In this case it would be an innuendo that "Ripple would create more XRP" or that "Ripple is a scam by greedy bankers". What would new-comers think when such innuendo hits them in the face? Do they have the background knowledge to weigh the differences between the likely and the unlikely? With so much negative misinformation about Ripple already circulating the crypto community space, do we need to continue perpetuating scenarios that are far-fetched?

If centralization is a concern, then fair questions need to be asked instead. Why has decentralization not yet taken place? Is there a shortage of willing participants? Is there a lack of technical expertise in current partners? Is Ripple not yet done with the current code and for ease of implementation want a dominance? Perhaps the stakeholder role for validators are planned to be given to the market-making funds which are still in the works? These questions are a far cry from the innuendos that perpetuate FUD.

I think its about providing facts and being honest about it....something Ripple does quite well. I will not lie about Ripple being centralised or sugar-coat it. They currently are centralised but are working to be decentralised in the future and let the user/speculator come to their own conclusion. But I will state that according to Ripple's past actions, they seem very reputable and have great integrity and therefore believe they will not do anything to hurt RCL/XRP's success. The fact that believe they will not jeopardise this does not mean this possibility does not exist.

You gave a lot of far fetched what-ifs.....heres one for you. If all the banks in the world agreed to use Ripple tomorrow but said......"100B XRP is not enough, we need at least 1 Trillion XRP"....would you know Ripple's response? No one does....but the fact that it is centralised, they will have that option. 

anyways, we can go back and forth with far-fetched examples till the cows come home but it wouldnt serve us any good. lets agree to disagree. I would much rather read balanced arguments than everyone cheerleading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, gutsu001 said:

I think its about providing facts and being honest about it....something Ripple does quite well. I will not lie about Ripple being centralised or sugar-coat it. They currently are centralised but are working to be decentralised in the future and let the user/speculator come to their own conclusion. But I will state that according to Ripple's past actions, they seem very reputable and have great integrity and therefore believe they will not do anything to hurt RCL/XRP's success. The fact that believe they will not jeopardise this does not mean this possibility does not exist.

You gave a lot of far fetched what-ifs.....heres one for you. If all the banks in the world agreed to use Ripple tomorrow but said......"100B XRP is not enough, we need at least 1 Trillion XRP"....would you know Ripple's response? No one does....but the fact that it is centralised, they will have that option. 

anyways, we can go back and forth with far-fetched examples till the cows come home but it wouldnt serve us any good. lets agree to disagree. I would much rather read balanced arguments than everyone cheerleading. 

This post wasn't a cheerleading attempt, but a dismissal of FUD about XRP's place in the pipelines. The topic speaks for itself.
I have laid out several balanced questions regarding the centralization of validators. Perhaps you could share your perspectives on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Xi195 said:

This isn't a fair statement, and your prior remark was quite rude and unbecoming of this forum.

Get off your high horse.  Pointing out a pattern to postings here actually is based in fact, and is done in fact-finding in courtroom on a regular basis.  We're all adults here (I think) and can take a few shots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×