Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, r0bertz said:

Why don't you send this to coindesk and ask them to publish it as an opinion piece, just like they did with the original garbage article that you debunked.  If they are unbiased, they should have no problem publishing your article!  Let us know what they say?

Share this post


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

no i think it warrants an official response, no offence to the author

nikb asked on twitter but i think coindesk are just ignoring it

I just don't understand why coindesk is pulling this crap then claiming to be an investor in ripple.  Does anyone understand the relationship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ripcurldog said:

I just don't understand why coindesk is pulling this crap then claiming to be an investor in ripple.  Does anyone understand the relationship?

i think it's just a simple "error", just in that they have to employ certain researchers/authors from across the spectrum of opinion, and cannot edit every single piece (they aren't exactly a highly professional outfit, although better than most in the space) -- this one didn't have oversight and was left with blatantly false information (or outright lies from the author)

the real blame isn't the author, it's whether coindesk will accept a rebuttal and/or retract the false information

as for the investment connection; they're part of a big group that has many fingers in many pies, so not everything's going to be pro-ripple or pro-whatever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ripcurldog said:

I just don't understand why coindesk is pulling this crap then claiming to be an investor in ripple.  Does anyone understand the relationship?

Simple answer, they are biased. "Coin-desk" speak to itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense, but your rebuttal article is not very good. You miss the original article's points and have a number of inaccurate statements. Couple this with the fact that it is riddled with grammatical errors and I see it doing more harm than good. If you want a good rebuttal, read the article that user tommytrain wrote in response to Peter Todd's critique and paraphrase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2017 at 0:20 PM, TiffanyHayden said:

Not always. Betamax was actually superior to VHS by many standards. The product that wins isn't always technically better than the competition, it's just better marketed.

At present, I believe that XRP is being marketed rather well. I sure would like to see MORE marketing efforts, but I think it is happening behind closed doors. Look at the G20 presentation by GPFI https://www.betterthancash.org/tools-research/reports/building-inclusive-digital-payments-ecosystems-guidance-note-for-governments

Then you have FlashFX online foreign currency exchanger! With all of the negativity surrounding BTC, and the extreme volatility of ETH, XRP will outshine them all as it has a REAL-world use-case, and is easily laid out to understand. I'd rather support change within our current system than overthrow it all. :) 

Edited by ObservantOne
I used rather twice in a sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zerpdigger said:

no i think it warrants an official response, no offence to the author

nikb asked on twitter but i think coindesk are just ignoring it

This is why people need to spam Barry Silbert. I tweeted him asking if the article aligned with his personal views of crypto. Barry owns the firm that owns coindesk. 

He said he was leaving Twitter for a while due to all of the negativity....right before this article was published!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zerpdigger said:

nothing gets your valid point across like shouting in someone's face

I said nothing about shouting, good sir. If many people tweet him about the same issue, maybe he will get the message. Seeing as he is also invested in Ripple, it would mean one of two things: 

Either he is approving of these crap articles as a means to spread FUD so they can scoop up more XRP

or

He is fully unaware of what is actually being written, and how it is impacting other people. 

Again, I said nothing about shouting. There is no reason to put something negative to a positive movement, wouldn't you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2017 at 6:03 PM, JoelKatz said:

You can disagree with the validity of the use case we've explained over and over, that rapid payment systems will drive demand for rapid settlement systems. But to ignore it or pretend we haven't made it is, at least in my opinion, inexcusable.

 

:JC_out_cold::moil:

Well put, @JoelKatz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pisohamate said:

Exactly. I can't understand why the writer of the Coindesk article, who is apparently bullish on bitcoin, has MORE trouble believing that a well-funded, innovative, and organized startup could convince large institutions to solve a problem that's costing them billions of dollars a year, than he has believing a mostly organic, ungoverned, unfunded group of coders will convince the world to trade their credit cards and bank accounts for ones and zeros, driven, somehow, by an abstract vision of banking without central control...

I'll put my bet on the first group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...