/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7785550
Sage and hide. If I see this one more time I'll report for spam and flood.

>>7785564
there's still time to dump your bags before they become worthless

>>7785564
>if you trash my coins one more time I'll go to the principal's office

>>7785594
I'm going to need more to buy in.

Provide links where we can dig deeper. Ripple is barely doing bank transfers; its valuation already has tons of growth priced in. Risk reward ratio is off. Chainlink and Request reaching even Ripple's current mcap would be insane returns.

>>7785639
interledger.org

What's the point in buying xrp? It's not used in transactions

>>7785639


.

>>7785654
dude simply educate yourself and until then stfu.
lazy stupid ass stinky linkie

>>7785550
No big company is ever going to use ripple. Period.
They're going to use their own blockchains which is why chainlink etc will thrive.
I thought this was common knowledge by now

>>7785639
reminder: Interledger and Codius didn't get any press coverage yet. They are not priced in.

CENTRALISED PREMINED SHITCOIN

>>7785669
>Holding LINK

No thanks

>>7785550
Codius and Interledger do not provide decentralized oracles in a blockchain-agnostic manner.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

>>7785654
>>7785671
Lookup xRapid (uses XRP)

>5 institusions are currently using xRapid (MoneyGram, Cuallix, FlashFX, IDT and MercuryFX).
>Many banks are currently using xCurrent. Since xRapid is cheaper (saves up to 60%) and provides final settlement, they are likely to transition to it.
>Bichip will use XRP in its RFID chips.


.

and not mention, P2P payments in the future (thanks to Interledger).

>>7785550
You have no idea what REQ is going to be, right? It’s not just a ‘Pay with Request’ and money transfer Token. XRP and REQ are no competitors at all.

>>7785654
Uneducated brainlet, theres still time to buy in

>>7785738
I do. Interledger makes it obselete and it doesn't rely on a specific blockchain like REQ. The Interledger protocol connects different ledgers (blockchain or not). It allows you to pay with any method. (e.g. you pay with doge coin to a merchant who accepts Zimbabwean dollar).


Check interledger.org then dump your REQ bags. First implementation of interledger is coming soon. Your follow REQ bagholders will realize this at some point.

>>7785759
*fellow

>>7785704
Codius does! and both of them are blockchain agnostic.

>>7785798
I’m talking about auditing, invoicing etc, you dipshit. REQ is not bound to the Ethereum Blockchain btw. They can change Blockchains if needed. Accept it. Ripple might be used, XRP is not. You fell for it.

>>7785669
>>7785759
No, really, please explain how XRP tokens are used in Ripple's offer to companies and banks.
Please do tell me!
.
.
.
That's right, they ARE NOT USED!!!! By buying xrp tokens, you are literally buying a stock without any of the rights that go into owning one. You are just buying a speculative asset, nothing more!
Seriously kys you fucking faggots

yeah you know what else Ripple is?
C E N T R A L I Z E D
get that shit outta here

>>7785864
>auditing
possible in almost every ledger.

>invoicing
you don't need tokens/blockchains for that
>They can change Blockchains if needed

retard, the point is that IT REQUIRES A BLOCKCHAIN. IT HAS A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE.

with Interledger, THERE'S NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT TRANSACTION FEES. THERE'S NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT DEVELOPERS FUCKING WITH THE CODE. THERE'S NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT SMART CONTRACTS BUGS.

Interledger is not a blockchain, it's not a token, it simply a protocol to connect different ledgers. There's no risk.

>>7785870
it has already been explained to you.

>5 institusions are currently using xRapid (MoneyGram, Cuallix, FlashFX, IDT and MercuryFX).
>Many banks are currently using xCurrent. Since xRapid is cheaper (saves up to 60%) and provides final settlement, they are likely to transition to it.
>Bichip will use XRP in its RFID chips.

.
and not mention, P2P payments in the future (thanks to Interledger).

.
how xRapid works:
===
xRapid uses public exchanges that trade XRP to source liquidity from speculators and other members of the public who're trading cryptocurrencies for fiat and vice-versa. It pairs trades at different exchanges in real time and transfers the XRP between exchanges.


It automates the following process, which one can do (slower, thereby less profitably) by hand:

Deposit USD at (source exchange)
Trade USD for XRP at (source exchange)
Withdraw XRP from (source exchange), deposit at (destination exchange)
Trade XRP for EUR at (destination exchange)
Withdraw EUR from (destination exchange),
==

>>7785843
The back-end for Codius is Ripple. Not decentralized, and not actually blockchain-agnostic.
And Interledger sure as shit isn't decentralized.

>>7785675
>Interledger and Codius didn't get any press coverage yet. They are not priced in.
Bullshit. There is tons of documentation and press releases from over a year ago.

It's actually pretty crazy that the W3C is involved in this. The concept makes sense, I'm just not sure if it will work as described.

>>7785550
>this late competition that nobody is developing on will surely win!
Ok
>>7785933
>A decentralized blockchain is a point of failure, while a glorified centralized spreadsheet is not.
Ok.

>>7786013
Press releases and press coverage are different things, and press releases about them are very rare.


Link me to popular sites that talk about Codius and Interledger. Interledger implementation isn't even in production yet. Codius was revived months ago as Interledger was reaching its final stages.

Few people here know about Inteledger. In Twitter, no one talks about Interledger and Codius except for XRP early adopters. Even one of the inventors of Interledger (who works at Ripple btw) noticed this.

>>7785953
BULLSHIT
>Bichip will use XRP
Yeah, firstly they just need to build a fucking website. AHAAHHAHAHAHAH
You got scammed into a memecoin! Ripple's CEO must be astonished at the quantity of fags who literally gave him away money for free.
I do not doubt that XRP's value is going to increase over time, as it its the most normie-friendly crypto after bitcoin and ethereum. But I am sure as hell that I am going to enjoy its trip back to 0 when the scam has been discovered!

>>7786169
your fear is showing. Which bag is causing this anxiety? ChainLink? Bcash?

>>7785550
Don't share this information with uneducated pajeets on /biz.

/biz collective market cap is only like 10m. This is less than a speck of dust to Ripple's possibilities.

Let them stay poor - there will always be losers. Somebody has to get the FOMO prices.

OP I thank you for sharing the truth, but keep these deluded basement boys out of it. ;)

>>7785550
However - I don't see why you list Monero for anonymity?.. I can be traced quite easily. You're better off with a Tor coin like Verge XVG.

>>7785550
I don't see how this has anything to do with ChainLink. Ripple will not be providing decentralised oracle services.

>>7786252
you are clearly ignorant. You can access Monero's network with TOR or whatever the fuck you want. This has nothing to do with Monero's protocol.

>>7786237
Most of them don't deserve to know, but I feel bad for the noobs who trust the retards here and fall for their FUD.

>>7785550
You don't even know what ChainLink is capable of if you think Ripple matters.

>>7786161
The point was that this shit has been out for a very long time. Any lack of coverage is in spite of Ripple's shilling to the press.

>>7786389
lol check the website

"We're Solving the Connectivity Problem, a Key Limiting Factor for Smart Contract Usability"

this is solved with Interledger and Codius. By the way, Sergey joined the non chair participants to witness the death of his shitty project:

https://www.w3.org/community/interledger/


>>7786446
Ripple hasn't talked about Interledger in a long time. It will certainly promote the shit out of it when it becomes production ready, you should wait if you trade the /biz/ way, buy high, sell low.

use google.com

site:ripple.com interledger

>>7786237
>dat pic
Yeah, no shit centralized solutions are faster and have lower fees. Fucking lmao.
But the whole point of crypto is to be DEcentralized.
The fucking state of Ripplefags, need to be spoonfed about what makes crypto crypto.

>>7786520
>Ripple hasn't talked about Interledger in a long time.
Stop making excuses.
Ripple has been trying to throw interledger out there for a very long time. And failing.

>>7786520
>this is solved with Interledger and Codius
No.

Not decentralized, and not actually blockchain-agnostic.

>>7786561
Interledger is blockchain agnostic, besides needing the blockchain to have an escrow mechanism.

>>7786544
just use google, retard:
site:ripple.com interledger

old articles years ago when it was invented. maybe one or two articles in 2017. that's it.

the w3c workgroup is working on Interledger, it's not the time to promote it. It's not priced in yet.

>buying ripple aka badStellar

We've got IBM on our side.
We're going to eat you alive

>>7786595
>Interledger is blockchain agnostic
You could argue that, I was talking about Codius.

And the point is moot anyway, since interledger is not decentralized.

>>7786602
Stop making excuses. Ripple has been shilling interledger for a very long time.
The fact that they gave up at some point changes nothing.

>>7786320

So you must use Monero with Tor in order to be anonymous?

Great coin.. Really.. I wouldn't use this POS over Verge probably ever.

>>7786612
sorry, your shitcoin won't make IBM relevant again.
>Ripple
>+100 banks
>+5 institutions including Western Union
>presidential advisors
>crypto regulators
>prize-winning economists
>corporate leaders
>former heads of major banks
>ex-central bankers
>top-tier NSA coding wizards
>>7786620
>since interledger is not decentralized

lmao. That's like saying TCP is centralized. Interledger is just a protocol for connecting ledgers. It was invented by Ripple and developed by a w3c workgroup.
>>7786641
they haven't even begun retard. first production ready implementation hasn't even been released. Your ChainLink must be feeling very heavy now, I feel your need to FUD.

>>7786719
>they haven't even begun
They began years ago.

>>7786733
some articles in 2016 about the invention of the protocol. one article in 2017 for an update on development.

how many speculators know? few, but you should wait until your fellow ChainLink bagholders find out and dump on your ass lol

>>7786787
And quora posts, and a constantly active twitter, and permanent links on Ripple's websites, etc. etc.

Stop making excuses.

>>7785550
>Ripple is going to beat Link

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You have NO idea what Link even does.
Protip: Link eats up Interledger's use case, all of it, AND ON TOP OF THAT Link adds EXTERNAL DATA to the use case.

Interledger, like the name implies, only allows for transactions between ledgers/blockchains. It's basically
Chainlink can do that, AND transactions involving non-crypto data, i.e. ALL OTHER DATA IN EXISTENCE.

This is freaking hilarious.

>>7786821
excuses for what, retard?

>quora posts
has no effect


>constantly active twitter
an unknown developer with few thousand followers

>Ripple's websites
old articles


show me a mainstream website or a crypto celebrity/OG mention it.

Don't forget to post pink wojak when you get dumped on.

Holy shit, OP is such a desperate retard, hahahaha! Sure, keep your XRP, which will solve all the problems by itself. I’m so looking forward to the day you neck yourself.

>>7786914
For the shitty exposure.

Excuses like "has no effect", "twitter isn't popular", "those articles are old".

And you never addressed the main part of my original argument. See >>7786907

>>7786907

It already beat link..

Everybody beat link..

Do you seriously think this fat autist without a product or partnerships is ANY form of competition to Ripple?

I hope you kill yourself or don't breed.

>>7786950
Refute the actual argument.

Interledger's use case is completely gobbled up by Chainlink, and that's just scratching the surface of what Chainlink even does.

>>7785550

I do concur, OP.

XRP is clearly superior to that faggotry known as LINK.

Payments, interoperability and smart contracts (soon): XRP
Anonymity: Monero
Digital gold: Bitcoin
ICOs and smart contracts (for now): Ethereum
File storage: Sia

>>7786907
>muh external data

no one cares

let me know when ChainLink becomes a w3c standard with participants from the top companies. ChainLink's main selling point is made obsolete by Interledger. There's a reason Sergey joined the w3c workgroup (as non chair participant), and not the other way around. see >>7786520

>>7786950
>without a product
objectively false

>>7786985
>no one cars about external data

I'd laugh but I'm already laughing from before.

>ChainLink's main selling point is made obsolete by Interledger.
ChainLink's main selling point is connecting external data to the blockchain.
And Chainlink just so happens to eat up ALL of Interledger's use case (inter-blockchain operability) in the process.

>>7786985
>no one cares
No seriously, I really hope you're trolling.

It's one thing to be shitpostshilling for your coin, but it's another entirely to actually be this fucking dumb.

>>7787022
>>7787059
yup no one cares, any significant smart contract will pick a centralized trustworthy data provider and stick with it

>>7785550
>>7787022
>>7787059
The more I look into this, I want to ask: how is interledger going to allow legacy systems to utilize smart-contract platforms of their choice, without secure data inputs and payment messages to banks, retailers or cryptos, via an oracle network (which should be decentralized to be more difficult to compromise). What if customers don't want to be limited to using the XRP network for interoperability and off-chain external data inputs?

>>7787224
Oh my god, you STILL don't realize what this is about.

"External" data. Do you know what that is? Do you what this data is "external" to?
It's data that is external to ledgers/blockchains; i.e. data Interledger cannot use, but Chainlink can.

>>7787225
Interledger has nothing to do with smart contracts. It's ledger agnostic. XRP will benifit the most of it because it's the cheapest, fastest and 100% interledger compliant.


interledger.org

first implementation will support both XRP and ETH. Fiat is next.

>>7787279
nigger, Interledger is not a smart contracts protocol/platofrm. It's simply a protocol for connecting ledgers. You mean Codius?

>>7787225
Interledger only works for crypto, not external data.
Chainlink works for crypto AND external data.

>>7787308
Guess how transactions are done on decentralized crypto exchanges? Through smart contracts.
Chainlink will completely gobble up Interledger's use case in that it will allow for transactions and transfers between blockchains/ledgers by using blockchain/ledger data.
AND Chainlink will allow for the use of external data in smart contracts as well.

>>7787290
>nothing to do with smart-contracts
So does it have functionality as middleware or not?
Because the whole point of middleware like LINK is to provide legacy systems the opportunity to use smart-contracts without being limited to tokenization, by solving the connectivity problem of securing the inputs/outputs of the smart-contract end-to-end via a decentralized oracle network.
So how is this going to kill LINK if it has nothing to do with smart-contracts, secure inputs/outputs for external data sources and legacy systems?

>>7787370
>Chainlink will completely gobble up Interledger's use case in that it will allow for transactions and transfers between blockchains/ledgers by using blockchain/ledger data.


Nigger, have you been reading anything? Interledger connects LEDGERS (blockchain or not).

Codius (smart contracts) uses Interledger. Data sourcing requires trust. Any significant smart contract will hard core some trust worthy data provides.


>Because the whole point of middleware like LINK is to provide legacy systems the opportunity to use smart-contracts without being limited to tokenization, by solving the connectivity problem of securing the inputs/outputs of the smart-contract end-to-end via a decentralized oracle network.

see above.

Codius (smart contracts) + Interledger (w3c standard for connecting ledgers) make ChainLink obsolete. Sourcing data doesn't require ChainLink lol.

>>7785870
https://ripple.com/insights/much-ado-much-to-do-part-3/

>In its end state, here is how xRapid will work:

>Financial institutions or corporations will initiate a payment through xRapid.
xRapid sources the most competitive liquidity option across all of the exchanges and third-party market makers it connects.
>Whichever market maker offers the tightest spread takes the sending currency, trades it into XRP, transfers the XRP to the destination (in just a few seconds), trades it into the destination currency and then settles it in the destination account.
>This end-to-end flow is instant, seamless and enables FIs to service cross-border payments on an on-demand basis — no more trapped working capital or expensive FX services!

>>7787492
>Interledger connects LEDGERS (blockchain or not).
"Ledger" is a fancy name for blockchain-type infrastructures.
In this case, they circumvent this by making the external data providers put the assets directly into crypto via the "escrow" step.
This is supply-side, and it's retarded compared to Chainlink, which is demand-side and can use any external data without having to rely on any escrow.

>>7785910
So is the dollar, so is Apple stock. Bitcoin is amazing. Not everything has to be Bitcoin. I keep some cash in a heavy metal safe and some in a leather wallet. The wallet is less secure but still useful. Some one could just reach in your pocket and grab it. Yet Walmart sells both safes and wallets.

>>7787224

Yeah at least you understand the basics. That centralisation is at the heart of crypto. You dumbass lmao.

>>7787756
>so is the dollar
yeah and the dollar is fucking terrible

>>7787701
>>7787701
nice word salad, your project is still obsolete though.

>>7787808
Do more research.

>>7787767
True, but it was the world reserve currency for more than half a century and you've probably used it for more transactions than anything else.

>>7787834
take your own advice, you have no idea how Interledger works.

>>7787767
>stable
>used as a global peg
>used in countries with shitfiat

im not even going to go into the practicalities of the dollar vs cryptocurrency

>>7787894
So how does Interledger connect external data to the blockchain, anon?

>>7787965
>inflationary
>can easily be torn to shreds
>could possibly have been in a strippers disgusting taint
fiat sucks m8

>>7787808
>ad hominem
That means we win.
Funding ran out, pajeet?

Hashgraph is a far better technology than Ripple for its intended use.

>>7787991
im talking about USD vs crypto, not fiat vs crypto generally

of course we'd all be using crypto in an ideal world

>>7787987
what external data? external to what? As I said, read more about Interledger. It's not a blockchain. Everything is external to Interledger, it's a protocol.

>>7787993
no, it means your project is shit, it's simply a bunch of data providers. Interledger uses Hash-Time-Locked Contracts.

>>7785637
lmao

>>7788154
>what external data? external to what? As I said, read more about Interledger. It's not a blockchain. Everything is external to Interledger, it's a protocol.
I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
You very obviously have zero clue what any of this is about.

Protip: you cannot use "external data" (i.e. external to the crypto space) within crypto (which is where Interledger operates).
Which is why Interledger makes the supply side buy crypto as "escrow".

>"Yes, sir my friend, we can turn your dollars into crypto. All you have to do is buy a crypto with your dollars and we take it from there."

Do more research.

>>7788154
>Link
>simply a bunch of data providers
Lmao, no.

>>7788410
>>"Yes, sir my friend, we can turn your dollars into crypto. All you have to do is buy a crypto with your dollars and we take it from there."


pajeet, you will have to try harder if you want me to waste my time on you.

Banks and payment institutions can issue fiat IOU/tokens. There's no need to buy crypto. Interledger is a trustless payment routing protocol. Your ShitLink is simply a data provider, and for smart contracts which are always risky. It's a shit project.

>>7788902
>Banks and payment institutions can issue fiat IOU/tokens.
That's what I was describing, lol.

>There's no need to buy crypto.
But that's exactly what you're doing when you issue fiat-backed crypto tokens.

>Interledger is a trustless payment routing protocol.
One that can't use external data, and requires escrow from the supply side.

>Your ShitLink is simply a data provider
Link is in no way a "data provider". Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>7788989
>That's what I was describing, lol.

no, pajeet, here's what you said:
> All you have to do is buy a crypto with your dollars and we take it from there."

the bank (or payment company) would simply provide the customer (who wants to pay with fiat) with IOUs, there's no need for him to buy crypto. The merchant (accepting fiat) would get an address from the bank.

>requires escrow from the supply side
no, lookup hashed time-lock contracts, the money cannot be lost or stolen by intermediaries
>Link is in no way a "data provider

keep telling yourself that, here's a case scenario,
customer has A
Merchant accept only Z

there's no direct A to Z link,

there's a route:
A > B
B > C
...

Y>Z

tell me how your data provider shit project can route the payment from the customer to the merchant, securely.

It can't, it simply can provide some data that could potentially used by some buggy smart contracts.

>>7789256
>the bank (or payment company) would simply provide the customer (who wants to pay with fiat) with IOUs, there's no need for him to buy crypto
That's the same thing, birdbrain.
You have to convert fiat to crypto YOURSELF as the supplier. Which is what you do when you buy crypto or issue fiat-based crypto.

>no, lookup hashed time-lock contracts, the money cannot be lost or stolen by intermediaries
That's what escrow means, yes.

>tell me how your data provider shit project can route the payment from the customer to the merchant, securely.
Link isn't a data provider, but a smart contract would make quick work of this.
Imagine a decentralized exchange (like Etherdelta) that can use non-ETH assets - even non-crypto assets - for smart contract-based trading.

No need for artificial intermediary steps like escrow.

>>7789318
>That's what escrow means, yes.


no, pajeet, escrow implies counterparty risk, with hashed time-lock contracts, the money cannot be lost or stolen by intermediaries. stop using misleading terms for a new technology.
>That's the same thing, birdbrain.
it's not, you said I need to buy crypto. I wouldn't need to buy crypto if my bank is ILP compliant. Enough with the mental gymnastics.


>Imagine a decentralized exchange (like Etherdelta) that can use non-ETH assets - even non-crypto assets - for smart contract-based trading.

hahaha, "imagine", this is the kind of answer expected because ShitLink can't solve the problem I provided. It's simply a long list of "imagine" to build something insecure.


>artificial intermediary steps
These are not artificial, the future is not one ledger. People will always choose different ledgers. "One ledger to rule them all" will never work. Interledger is the future, there is a reason it became a w3c standard.

>>7789901
>escrow implies counterparty risk
Escrow means money is being held by an independent third party.

>it's not, you said I need to buy crypto. I wouldn't need to buy crypto if my bank is ILP compliant.
What you're using is not fiat, it's fiat-backed crypto.

>hahaha, "imagine"
Well yes, Chainlink is still fully in the developmental phase.

>These are not artificial
The supply side has to actively make his assets available within the crypto space.
That's like saying you're a delivery company, but making the supplier drive to the receiver's house himself.

xrp has no actual use :)

>>7790063
>Escrow means money is being held by an independent third party.


that's not what happens with hashed time-lock contracts. google it, before answering, pajeet.


>>7790063
>The supply side has to actively make his assets available within the crypto space.

yes, that's true, that's the only way to route payments through different ledgers, securely. data sourcing is a joke, or a nightmare to you, because you are bagholding.

>>7790261
>but making the supplier drive to the receiver's house himself

terrible analogy, just like "escrow". the supplier would simply integrate his system with the delivery company, the delivery company would do the rest, also the delivery company would have to be trustless somehow (maybe run by robots) for the analogy to be accurate.

>>7790261
>that's not what happens with hashed time-lock contracts. google it, before answering, pajeet
Except that is exactly what happens. Hence the term "escrow".

>yes, that's true, that's the only way to route payments through different ledgers, securely
No.

>>7790334
Making the supplier put his assets into crypto means he's doing half the work.
Smart contracts make everything more secure and streamlined.

>>7790174
See >>7787527

>>7790405
>Smart contracts make everything more secure and streamlined.

smart contracts are programs. all programs have bugs. even Ethereum's co-founder couldn't create a smart contract for a multisig wallet without fucking up twice, the second time he locked hundreds of millions of dollars permanently (probably more than a billion after the price surge).

and that's not even the big problem, you need traditional system integration, your retarded approach is through some data sourcing, which is neither reliable nor secure. Issuing IOUs/tokens is not complex and some established payment companies are already interested: >>7785663


a blockchain agnostic protocol is the way to go.


>Except that is exactly what happens. Hence the term "escrow".
no, it's not " being held by an independent third party." it's held by both parties, there's no counterparty risk.


your attempts keeping getting more pathetic, pajeet. How heavy are your shitlink bags?

>>7790728
>smart contracts are programs. all programs have bugs.
When you have to FUD computer software in general in order to attack Link because you're all out of arguments.
Congrats, lmao.

>you need traditional system integration, your retarded approach is through some data sourcing, which is neither reliable nor secure
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Chainlink is not about securing the data source. The user or node selecting the actual data source bears the responsibility. Same as in Interledger's case.

>a blockchain agnostic protocol is the way to go.
Exactly. Go Chainlink!

>no, it's not " being held by an independent third party." it's held by both parties
It's being held by neither. The "third party" is whatever is holding the escrow.

>>7790728
>a blockchain agnostic protocol is the way to go

chainlink IS blockchain agnostic, moron.

>>7790857
>When you have to FUD computer software

this is a fact of software, and when it comes to smart contracts, it's 1000 times worse. Smart contracts are usually written in blockchain specific languages, which are new and not tested enough, the interpreter/complied is not tested enough either.

You suggestion to replace a language and blockchain independent protocol with a smart contract is simply retarded/ignorant.


>Chainlink is not about securing the data source. The user or node selecting the actual data source bears the responsibility. Same as in Interledger's case.

you select a data source and trust it, with Interledger, you trust no one, the money cannot be lost or stolen by intermediaries, if a connector misbehaves, the money is returned to you.

>The "third party" is whatever is holding the escrow
both of you are in control of the funds thanks to the magic of encryption, you don't have to cuck yourself to some shitlink data source and pray to god it doesn't give you bad data.

>>7791514
>Smart contracts are usually written in blockchain specific languages, which are new and not tested enough
Welcome to the cutting edge of technology.

>You suggestion to replace a language and blockchain independent protocol with a smart contract is simply retarded/ignorant.
You say it's retarded, meanwhile Swift, Capgemini, World Economic Forum, ... all say it's the future.

>you select a data source and trust it
Well yes. That's data.

>with Interledger, you trust no one
That's because it cannot use external data.

>you don't have to cuck yourself to some shitlink data source and pray to god it doesn't give you bad data
There is no "Chainlink data source".
The data sources will be the exact same ones you'd be using for whatever you want to use Interledger for.

Transactions are just a tiny part of Chainlink's use case, btw.
You can set up smart contracts that perfectly emulate Interledger, with the data input coming from you and/or the other party to the transaction.

Once again; you have NO idea what you're talking about.

>>7791724

>You can set up smart contracts

You can shit with your pants on too. Do you know why standards exist? Do you know why we bother making working groups and spend months or years to develop them?


>smart contracts
>blockchain specific
>language specific (which has to be blockchain specific too, not a well tested general purpose language)
>buggy
>runs its own purpose interpreter/compiler (not well tested as interpreters and compilers that have been used for years or decades)
>under the mercy of blockchain operators/developers
>under the mercy of miners
>single point of failure


please keep shouting "smart contracts", it shows how retarded shitlinkers are.
>You say it's retarded, meanwhile Swift, Capgemini, World Economic Forum, ... all say it's the future.

swift which gets hacked twice a weak and other technically illiterate dinosaurs lol


>The data sources will be the exact same ones you'd be using for whatever you want to use Interledger for.

except that interledger intermediates are trustless

with shitlink, I would need to trust smart contract on some blockchain and trust dozens of data sources just for a single transaction

with interledger, I don't have to do any of that


you bought the top, didn't you? if you covert your bags now you might make up for the loss and possibly make some profit, it's not too late, pajeet.

>>7792099
>smart contracts
>blockchain specific
Lol. You have absolutely ZERO clue what you're talking about, and it is hilarious.

Blockchain is the only reason anyone is even considering the possibility of smart contracts, you absolute retard.

>swift which gets hacked twice a weak and other technically illiterate dinosaurs lol
Cope.

>except that interledger intermediates are trustless
So are smart contracts.

>I would need to trust smart contract on some blockchain
You have no idea what smart contracts are. Lmao.

>and trust dozens of data sources just for a single transaction
Depends on the transaction.
For transactions like the ones used in Interledger, you only have to "trust" the exact same parties.

>>7792201
>retard doesn't know what "blockchain specific" means

you retardation never ceases to amaze me, pajeet, it means a smart contract works on a specific blockchain, the user wouldn't be able to run it wherever it wants. just like OS-specific software.

how long have you been a computer user?


>Cope.
nope, they are literal retards when it comes to new technologies, just like you.


>You have no idea what smart contracts are. Lmao.
I do, clearly you don't.


>For transactions like the ones used in Interledger, you only have to "trust" the exact same parties.

Interledger is trustless. Shitlink with its data sources aren't. Period.


These bags must be really heavy.

>>7792525
>it means a smart contract works on a specific blockchain, the user wouldn't be able to run it wherever it wants
That makes your retardation even worse.
Chainlink works with any blockchain and/or DLT.

>[Swift, Capgemini, Gartner, World Economic Forum, ...] are literal retards when it comes to new technologies
Literal mental health issue.

>Interledger is trustless
So are smart contracts.

>Shitlink with its data sources aren't.
You have no idea what Chainlink is or does.
Protip: the "data sources" are the exact same if you want to use Chainlink for the same purpose as Interledger.

Also, do you even know what "data" is? Do you know that all data comes from "sources"?

>>7792669
>Chainlink works with any blockchain and/or DLT.

Pajeet, we were talking about your imaginary smart contract, not your shitlink.


>So are smart contracts.

no, you have to trust the smart contract developer to not be malicious, you have to trust his competence, you have to trust the blockchain operators/developers to not fuck with the blockchain or the compiler/interpreter in the future, you have to trust the miners, you have to trust the data sources from the shitlink.

the only thing you don't need to trust is your brain because you don't use it anyway

>>7792980
>Pajeet, we were talking about your imaginary smart contract, not your shitlink.
Well yes. Whatever blockchain/DLT/smart contract platform you want to use, Chainlink will be able to make external data usable there for the purpose of smart contracts.
Once again you broadcast your complete ignorance on this.

>you have to trust the smart contract developer to not be malicious
You have to trust the "smart contract developer"????

Fucking LELMAO

>you have to trust the blockchain operators/developers to not fuck with the blockchain
When you have to resort to fuding "blockchain" in general just to attack Link.

You are extremely entertaining.

>>7793049
>Whatever blockchain/DLT/smart contract platform you want to use

pajeet, we are talking about a standard way for the entire world, you proposed a smart contract, so it has to be a specific contract (a piece of code) that works on a specific blockchain.

do you have to explain this again?

im already all in on link but thanks for this useless informations.

>>7793208
*do I have

>>7793240
enjoy baholding. will come back for you when the first implementation of interledger is released. you might not be smart enough to realize that interledger makes shitlink obselete, but I'm sure other bagholders are

>>7793208
>the fact that you need to use a blockchain makes it inferior!
You have mental problems.

crypto.youcollect.co/#/marketplace/request-network

REQ gonna moon lads

>>7793338
no, the fact that you would force that choice on the users

you are forcing:
a certain piece of code
a certain blockchain
a certain mining cartel
a certain group of developers

and not mention having to trust dozens of data sources from shit link

Interledger is just a protocol, it can have 10s of implementations in different languages. It can be used with any ILP compliant blockchain. You are not forcing your shit on the user.

you are anonymous here, pajeet, tell us how much shitlink do you have? and when did you buy?

>>7793520
You are shitting on Link because users are "forced" to choose a blockchain, and then you turn around and say Interledger also uses blockchain.

You are insane.

>>7785550
dAPP hosting and IPFS: EOS

>>7793595
no, I'm shitting on ShitLink because it's not trustless, it's simply a data provider, it's not even a full solution.

>>7793614
didn't read much about EOS desu

>>7793671
>because it's not trustless
No, you were shitting on Chainlink because it forces users to choose a blockchain.
Literally here: >>7793520

You have serious mental issues.

>it's simply a data provider
It makes external data usable for blockchains, allowing for mainstream smart contracts.
It also makes data from blockchains usable in other blockchains.

>>7785953
>Deposit USD at (source exchange)
>Trade USD for XRP at (source exchange)
>Withdraw XRP from (source exchange), deposit at (destination exchange)
>Trade XRP for EUR at (destination exchange)
>Withdraw EUR from (destination exchange),
you can simply do that with eth or btc, no point in using XRP. Plus ripple is a centralized network, which is something we are trying to get away from. At least with smartcontracts.com they created their decentralized network where their token chainlink is used to pay the node operators. What is XRP used for if the network is centralized?

>>7793729
>No, you were shitting on Chainlink because it forces users to choose a blockchain.

no, pajeet, I was shitting on your proposal to replace interledger with a smart contract that uses shitlink
>It makes external data usable for blockchains

as I said, it's a data provider. You guys are more pathetic than TRON bagholders.

Can you give a quick summary as to why XRP will make REQ obsolete then? Going to post it on the REQ subreddit for keks

>>7793789
>you can simply do that with eth or btc, no point in using XRP

lmao
pic related

>>7793803
>no, pajeet, I was shitting on your proposal to replace interledger with a smart contract that uses shitlink
And your objection was that this "forced" the use of a blockchain.

See >>7793520

>as I said, it's a data provider
It's a data translator.
The data is being provided by actual data sources.

And guess what, without a trustless data translator, there can be no smart contracts.

What i find funny in this thread is that you've all got your handbags out fighting about whether Chainlink or Interledger is better.

When in reality, Chainlink can use Interledger to facilitate payments cross-chain without developing adaptors for each.

>>7793839
I see the lower costs but China has lower cost industrial products yet most factories choose more expensive alternatives from Japan or Germany where the quality is better. Going from a decentralized system to a centralized system is like going from the highest quality german products to chinese knock offs.

>>7794164

it's actually more decentralized than bitcoin

.Bitcoin
-One company has more than 50% of the hashpower (Bitmain)
-One oppressive country has more than 50% of hashpower (China)
-One company has a monopoly on creating efficient ASIC Bitcoin miners thanks to patents (Bitmain)
-One company can rollback the chain and bankrupt the entire ecosystem (Bitmain)


Ripple
-10s of validators run by reputable non-related public and private entities in different countries (e.g., Microsoft, MIT, CGI, WorldLink, Telindus-Proximus Group, Bahnhof, ...)
-double spending not possible (the chain can't be rolled back)
-Consesus requires a supermajority of 80%
-Anyone can run a validator and use his own list of validators


.
.
pic related is the owner of bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.org

>>7785550
why the fuck would i buy a centralized coin for any other reason than to flip for profit
is that what this is about, anon? why do you even act like ripple has anything at all on req, chainlink, or bitcoin cash?

also
>digital gold: bitcoin
lol this is how you know that this is a troll post
miners are gonna mine bitcoin cash, you dingwad
bitcoin legacy is deincentivizing mining by offloading transaction processing to off-chain nodes
this isn't even a short-term solution, as it is literal fucking centralization that entrusts all the transactions in a few nodes, and if the pricks at blockstream decided that they didn't want you or anyone else accessing your "digital gold", they could just shut down the lightning network nodes, and then you would have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to make a single transaction
offloading transaction off-chain certainly isn't a fucking long term solution, either; what the hell is gonna be the point in running miners when there's no more bitcoin left to mine? in satoshi's bitcoin, mining after the unmined supply was exhausted propped up the network's value through facilitating transactions—so, what does core have going for it now? it's doomed to fail in the end; bitcoin core went from having actual value with no foreseeable end, to now having value propped up by thin air when mining is over. bitcoin cash doesn't have this problem, as it keeps everything on-chain and economically sound. i don't buy your shit about core being "digital gold" whatsoever in this sense; it's digital gold that is going to totally deplete its financial incentive to mine at some point in the next 150 years, and thus, will have no backing—and will lose every reason to exist at that point.

>>7794229
Bitcoin network is decentralized ironically the opposite has happened from what it was meant to do. We all already knew this but isnt ripple's network still a centralized one? No matter how you spin it at the end of the day Ripples network is centralized correct?

So again why would a company choose a centralized network when decentralized ones are already in use today? Price of fees is important but companies rather pay for quality of the service or product unless there's a specific reason to buy quantity over quality.

as a front-end engineer having worked for a huge internet company and several smaller startups, no one gives a fuck about W3C these days.

>>7790983
>ERC20 token
>Blockchain agnostic

Pick one
In its current form Chainlink is an ERC20 token fully dependent on Etherum

>>7794868
The token, yes.
But the token is only used for compensation and staking at the node and user levels. The actual technology will be completely blockchain-agnostic.

>>7794955
dubs to put a end that well written statement

>>7794868

>>7794955
>The actual technology will be completely blockchain-agnostic.

And when is this coming? Do they have a git repo for it?

If not right now thats all talk and no show

>>7795222
Yesterday actually

>>7795273
Link?

I looked here https://github.com/smartcontractkit and the most recently updated repo was ChainLink

>Centralized
>Premined

Will never touch this, even if it claims to do miraculous things.

>>7795311
Sergey announced yesterday at the bitcoinsuperconference that their alpha is now live.

>>7794441
How is 80% required consensus centralized? Ripple the company can't do anything if 80% of validators don't agree. And no Ripple is not selecting who validators are. You can run a rippled server if you want, just no reason since you can't mine it. But companies that have a stake in the security of xrp do run a rippled server.

>>7795490
Why do you feel miners, which are just individuals with lots of money, are more entitled to the profits of a coin then the developers?

>>7785550
is XRP the new LINK?

>>7795539
But how do we know that ripple wont even if 80% of the validators dont agree. Do the 80% have the ability to over turn agreements if Ripple decides to be a dick? If they do what is it and provide an example please. What your saying seems to me that youd still have to trust ripple. It seems a lot easier to trust a network designed to be trustless compared to a network where you have to trust the company that made the network.

>>7795625
no XRP is the scam that everyone thinks LINK is.

>>7795701
>It seems a lot easier to trust a network designed to be trustless compared to a network where you have to trust the company that made the network.
let me rephrase that,
it seems easier to trust a company that made a network designed to be 100% trustless than to trust a company that made a network where 80% of the validators have to agree. Ripple owns 20% im guessing so in reality Ripple would only need to convince 60% of the validators to be a dick. Im sure 100% trustless is better than any alternative that is not 100% trustless

Smartcontracts written in javascript
My pleb developer senses are tingling

>>7795222
Why don't you forget about Chainlink until the product is completely finished and released. Surely that will be the smart time to invest.

[Performance]
-Ripple consistently handles 1,500 transactions per second, 24x7.
-Payment channels can process 10s of 1000s of transactions per second.

.
[Cost]
-A standard transaction costs just 0.00001 XRP.
-The cost is not paid to any party: it's irrevocably destroyed.

.
[Real-world use]
-5 institusions are currently using XRP (MoneyGram, Cuallix, FlashFX, IDT and MercuryFX).
-Many banks are currently using xCurrent. Since xRapid is cheaper (saves up to 60%) and provides final settlement, they are likely to transition to it.
-Bichip will use XRP in its RFID chips.
-A w3c standard that Ripple helped develop (and was demo'd by Microsoft) will be available in all major browsers, it'll facilitate paying with XRP.

.
[Economics]
-The supply is fixed.
-Unlike Bitcoin, there's no inflation. Bitcoin uses PoW which relies on inflation and/or high fees. Bitcoin requires $18M of net new $ flowing in just to maintain the price!!

.
[Security]
-Unlike Bitcoin, double-spending isn't possible. Bitmain (a Chinese company) can rollback Bitcoin's chain and bunkrupt the whole ecosystem.
-An attack could only stop new transactions temporarily. Participants would simply remove bad participants from their list

.
[Decentralisation]
-Each participant can run a validator and use his own list of validators.
-validators role is to agree on an order for new transactions
-10s of reputable public & private entities around the world are currently running validators (e.g., Microsoft, MIT, CGI, WorldLink, Bahnhof,..)
-Consensus for the order of new transactions requires a supermajority of 80%

.
[Incentives]
-XRP is a revenue source for Ripple Labs. This aligns its incentives with XRP hodlers. It uses the revenue to improve the tech and expand XRP's marketshare.
-Ripple Labs share is locked in 55 batches on the network. Only one batch can be unlocked per month. It would take them 5 years to unlock them all. XRP is sold only to long term investors (i.e., they can't dump).

>>7796108
alpha is already live my friend

>>7796352
>The cost is not paid to any party: it's irrevocably destroyed.
How do we know that its destroyed and not simply transferred to Ripple in some hidden mechanic that they added to their centralized system

>>7795701
Ripple can't force validators to run code they don't want. If ripple puts out ripple 1.2 and 80% don't update then were still on the old ripple code

>>7796608
code ledger
open source
open protocol

>>7796624
*open ledger

>>7796608
How is it you fucks understand what public ledger and open source mean when talking about bitcoin but your brains just turn off when applied to ripple.

isnt xrp meant to stay around 1$ ?

>>7785550
You guys are all so fucking pathetic and stupid.
biz used to be the upfront of crypto, nowdays you all are way behind news, technology and any fucking idea about blockchain
the influx of normies and from other boards has made this board nothing else but reddit 2.0 for fatasses.

>>7796352
>>7796352

how is the coin supposed to last if it gets destroyed when you use it, we would run out eventually.

>>7796750
Yeah in like 3 million years. It's only exists to make spam attacks costly.

>>7796799

how many xrp is in circulation?

>>7796837
100 billion exist. Around 40 billion in circulation

>>7796681
The underlying question and issue people here have against ripple is thats at the end of the day its still a centralized system. 80% or not when given the option what would you rather choose 80% of an apple or 100% of an apple?

>>7785550
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin
Digital gold: Bitcoin
>Digital gold: Bitcoin

>>7796934
80% is more then 51%. Almost all other coins can be captured with a 51% attack. Ripple cannot because it requires 80%.

80% > 51%

>>7796934
DOUBLE SPENDING IS POSSIBLE WITH BITCOIN


DOUBLE SPENDING IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH RIPPLE

>>7797017
but doesnt ripple still have the final say? If 80% want code A but ripple really wanted code B cant ripple just be like fuck it we doing code B anyways.

What are the EOY predictions my fellow XRP marines?

>>7797227
but isnt that because its not on a decentralized network, so youd have to trust ripple not to be a dick

>>7797468
between 5-10$

>>7796915
so you have to hope a for an enormous market cap

>>7797424
Ripple cannot force unwanted code. 80% is needed for all code chages.

>>7797552
Yes. The only way you would make money buying ripple at this point would be if ripple accomplishes its global goals.

>>7797476
no, it's because it doesn't use proof-of-work, which forces nodes to accept the longest valid chain, whether it came first or not. With Ripple, once a ledger is signed by a supermajority (80%), that's it, it exists FOREVER, it can't be rolled back.

>>7797523
you would need a 195 billion market cap for 5$ and thats if it stays at the current circulating supply. If the full supply is out then you would need a 500 billion market cap. You sure about that?

>>7797720
If ripple is able to accomplish its goals, the market cap will be measured in trillions.

>>7797632
Put myself through Mr. Robot. (Fightclub remake pissed me off 2 years ago.) Ripple makes some more sense when you consider ecoin, banking and W3 aspects.

>>7797720
bitcoin's marketcap is not the limit, Ripple is going to penetrate markets measured in trillions, not billions. You don't know what's coming. Looking forward to dump on people like by EOY.

>>7797784
Emotions, ethics, and morals have no place in investing. Go throw some money at charities if that's what gets you off.

>>7797793
*like you

Ripple Poised to Explode

We’ve already seen Ripple reach $3.65 per coin in early January. Although the value has dropped back down, XRP is still sitting at almost five times their early December value. Bitcoin still has staying power as the blockchain progenitor and a reliable store of value. Ethereum still stands as the smart contract standard. However, it is Ripple that is seeing absolutely astounding adoption in the most critical industry to cryptocurrency – traditional financial institutions.

Major banks have shown a tremendous willingness to use the Ripple payment protocol for their own internal transfers and dealings with other banks. That alone gives XRP an avenue for major growth. When you also consider their commitment to further developments and solid, working product, there’s no doubt that Ripple will be a strong performer. The cryptocurrency’s low per unit price is particularly appealing to people looking for a major investment.

Their proven track record and historical highs help offset the relatively high market cap. We are still in the very early adoption phase for technologies like the Ripple payment protocol. Those that join in now will reap the rewards when Ripple becomes a universal bridge currency within financial institutions. As the total supply of XRP is fixed, the increased demand for this industrial use will force the price higher. When that happens, those holding XRP will find the currency selling at a high premium.

>>7796709

true.

Where do i go for news now?
Everything on biz is 90% link bullshit or trash.

>>7796709
>>7798254
Interledger and Codius aren't priced in. Almost no one talks them on twitter and MSM. Those who read the thread have a great advantage.

>>7797793
I was talking about Ripples market cap.

>>7798373
I was talking about Ripple too. Bitcoin's market cap is the implied limit. Ripple will shatter it this year.

Utility > speculation

>>7785550
Wrong, faggot.

Payments: XLM, NANO
Interoperability: KMD, TAU
Anonymity: Monero, Bitcoin Private
Digital gold: Bitcoin
ICOs and smart contracts: Ethereum, ChainLink
File storage: Oyster Protocol

>>7798414
No one gives a fuck about your cripple Ripple. You're gonna get BTFO this year when literally everything else moons and you're stuck holding bags. Just like last cycle LOL. Just admit you bought the top and cut your losses.

>>7798456
Bought at $0.25 after the escrow lockup. Sold 30% near the top. Bought the "dip" at $1. Ripple treated me very well. That's what happens when you pick coins with solid fundamentals.

>>7798643
or you got lucky, my friend bought when they were pennies and sold around the same as you.

>>7798704
nope, not lucky, the top concern about XRP was Ripple Labs ability to flood the market. When the escrow was announced I decided to buy immediately knowing it will skyrocket soon. It was a no brainer really.

>>7798704
Yeah the guy doesn't realize that everything else did similar if not better % increases in the same time. It's ok, hes an investment genius.

>>7798704
>>7798767
and what I see now is a huge demand for payments with crypto. Even Startbucks CEO wants to accept a crypto but he says it can't be expensive and slow like Bitcoin. Ripple's speed and cost + Interledger will give it another moon mission, I have no doubt about it, just like I had no doubt it will sky rocket after the escrow announcement.

>>7798780
>if not better % increases in the same time

lol no
XRP did better in that time frame, and in the entire year.

>>7798862
You said you bought it at $0.25, which was right before the bullrun.

Quit being a fucking lying retard to justify to your brain that you're a genius.

>>7798918
>"It was a no brainer really"
>to justify to your brain that you're a genius

you are not getting it, buying after the escrow lockup doesn't make me a genius, but not buying makes you a retard.


>You said you bought it at $0.25, which was right before the bullrun.
true, that's what I said. what's your problem?