Ripple - Virtual Currency paypal + more

fibonaccii

Has anyone had anything to do with ripple? Its still in beta.

Ripple is like paypal and a trading platfom for virtual + fiat currencies, allowing user to trade between virtual and fiat currencies all from the wallet. (Send and transfer any currency to anyone in the world)

Ripple also has a currency called XRP. There is 100 billion XRP. Opencoin the company behind ripple, distributes them a fairly as possible, and they will also keep on top of inflation this way. Opencoin is keeping 20% of the XRP to use to develop the company and ripple. They have got a lot of slack for this in the bitcoin community but they are a business in it to make money...

Basically the wallet can hold fiat, and (xrp,bitcoin,etc) all in the same wallet. It can be used to pay merchants who accept ripple or bitcoin as you can now pay from ripple into bitcoin wallets directly regardless or currency(it gets converted).

When dealing with bitcoin/xrp exchanges it is all done within the wallet and will make arbitrage very easy within bitcoin, but only if the exchanges start to accept ripple.

Bitcoiners have also blasted ripple for the IOU system, the same system that is used everywhere including the bank. But its the way the world works and I cant see it changing as much as I don't like it.

Google have invested 200k in the last round of investment in the company OpenCoin(The makers of ripple). Peanuts I know but it does add credibility and google must see some future for online currencies.

I don't see Ripple as a direct competitor to bitcoin, they should both help each other grow.

I think ripple could be the one to take off. Bitcoin was slated for not knowing the who made it, and its links to the blackmarket.

Ripple has the credibility, I feel which the people in the finance sector are seeking from online currencies.

I also recommending watching this interview if you want to find out the workings of Ripple.

It could be a flop or a game changer for online transactions.

Any thoughts? Current price is 165 XRP for 1 Euro at the moment.

Two more articles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/25/bitcoin-successors-litecoin-freicoin

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682032/bitcoin-20-can-ripple-make-digital-currency-mainstream

fergalr

The people behind Ripple seem to be in possession of a vast number of them.
I don't think thats cool.

alb

fibonaccii wrote: »

Has anyone had anything to do with ripple? Its still in beta.

Ripple is like paypal and a trading platfom for virtual + fiat currencies, allowing user to trade between virtual and fiat currencies all from the wallet. (Send and transfer any currency to anyone in the world)

I've not used Ripple, but a service like this could indeed be a useful progression from services like paypal and western union, especially if it's supporting both fiat and crypto currencies.

fibonaccii wrote: »

Ripple also has a currency called XRP. There is 100 billion XRP. Opencoin the company behind ripple, distributes them a fairly as possible, and they will also keep on top of inflation this way. Opencoin is keeping 20% of the XRP to use to develop the company and ripple. They have got a lot of slack for this in the bitcoin community but they are a business in it to make money...

Basically the wallet can hold fiat, and (xrp,bitcoin,etc) all in the same wallet. It can be used to pay merchants who accept ripple or bitcoin as you can now pay from ripple into bitcoin wallets directly regardless or currency(it gets converted).

XRP I have a problem with. It's not open source (they say it will be, but it isn't yet at least). It's centralized, so anything you do with it goes through a 3rd party. They say there are 100 billion, they say they distribute it fairly, but you're just taking their word for it. With Bitcoin we know there will only ever be 21 million, we know the schedule of production of new coins. XRPs could suffer from quantitative easing, your account could be closed because they don't like transactions you made etc. Until it's open source you don't really know what an XRP is.

fibonaccii wrote: »

I think ripple could be the one to take off. Bitcoin was slated for not knowing the who made it, and its links to the blackmarket.

The whole point with Bitcoin is that it doesn't matter who made it. The code is open source, everyone has full access to it so the creator gave up control once it was released. There is no central control of Bitcoin.

fergalr

alb wrote: »

The whole point with Bitcoin is that it doesn't matter who made it. The code is open source, everyone has full access to it so the creator gave up control once it was released. There is no central control of Bitcoin.

I think it does matter who made it. I don't like the fact that we don't know who is behind it.

People estimate that whoever is behind Bitcoin could control ~1 million Bitcoins. Thats about $100M now. If Bitcoin gets widely adopted and the value increases, thats quite a lot of money.

What if Bitcoin wasn't made by some cool crypto hacker in his garage, and its instead made by some nefarious evildoers, who intend to use their fortune to do evil?

alb

fergalr wrote: »

I think it does matter who made it. I don't like the fact that we don't know who is behind it.

People estimate that whoever is behind Bitcoin could control ~1 million Bitcoins. Thats about $100M now. If Bitcoin gets widely adopted and the value increases, thats quite a lot of money.

What if Bitcoin wasn't made by some cool crypto hacker in his garage, and its instead made by some nefarious evildoers, who intend to use their fortune to do evil?

Seems like a pointless argument, as you can ask the same thing for Ripple, what if the people behind Ripple are evil, and remember they control *all* the XRP?

Bitcoin's launch seems to have been designed to be fair, it was announced publicly on January 9 2009, and the first block contains a newspaper headline from 6 days earlier. Anyone was free to mine coins from the release date, Mining difficulty was 1 until over a year later in February 2010 when 1.9 million BTC had already been mined, there's a good chance the creator mined a lot of these, but no one can know for sure who has them all.

Personally I'm happy for the genius that developed Bitcoin to have a fair slice of the pie, and also anyone that supported it early on to bring it where it is today.

fergalr

alb wrote: »

Seems like a pointless argument,

?

alb wrote: »

as you can ask the same thing for Ripple, what if the people behind Ripple are evil, and remember they control *all* the XRP?

Yeah, its even more the case with Ripple. Thats what I objected to in my first post on this thread.

alb wrote: »

Bitcoin's launch seems to have been designed to be fair, it was announced publicly on January 9 2009, and the first block contains a newspaper headline from 6 days earlier. Anyone was free to mine coins from the release date,

It was less centrally controlled then Ripple, certainly.

The allocation seems to have been designed to incentivise people to mine bitcoins and to advocate for its spread. A very clever piece of social engineering, imo.

Im not sure that makes it 'fair' though.


Let me put it another way: what if the falloff in block rewards was much steeper than it actually is?
That would mean a higher proportion of bitcoins went to the early adopters.
Would this make the allocation more or less fair?

Some distributions/allocations give more to early adopters than others do. Its reasonable to criticise different allocations as being more or less fair.

alb wrote: »

Mining difficulty was 1 until over a year later in February 2010 when 1.9 million BTC had already been mined, there's a good chance the creator mined a lot of these, but no one can know for sure who has them all.

Personally I'm happy for the genius that developed Bitcoin to have a fair slice of the pie, and also anyone that supported it early on to bring it where it is today.

Even if that 'genius' is an illegal black ops unit of an oppressive government? Or a group of terrorists?
You've no problem with a party like that getting an unaccountable couple of billion dollars ?

Its a lot of resources for an anonymous party to get. If bitcoin is widely adopted, it'll be even more resources.

We don't know how they'll be spent (if they'll be spent.)

People seem to assume that because they haven't been cashed out, that the creator(s) didnt really care about them, and that they have probably been lost/broken, because they were worth so little when they were produced.

Maybe; but 'Nakamoto' has demonstrated they are capable of considerable foresight.

What if the motivations of bitcoin are not philosophical, but are instead pragmatic?

We don't know; specific claims are all pure speculation; but its absolutely fair to raise it as an issue.

alb

I think the Bitcoin launch was reasonably fair, the miners who secure the integrity of the network were rewarded with the new coins. And the launch was public so anyway was free to be a miner. One issue was that the whole concept was so new that they just weren't many people that understood it and decided to mine some.

It's a bit different with other new crypto currencies now that BTC has paved the way, many new coin launches which were announced publicly without a pre-mine get quite a few miners straight away.

Overall I'm ok with early adoptors getting the best gains, it's what causes people to invest in risky disruptive technologies and why something like BTC could gather enough momentum to succeed in the first place.

As for not knowing who created it, don't oppressive governments already make fiat money and the real people behind the Ripple company could be any of the dodgy people you mentioned also. At least with BTC they can't mess with the money supply, prevent people using it, shut down accounts, or shut down the whole thing. Having a certain proportion of the coins is all they can control.

fergalr

alb wrote: »

I think the Bitcoin launch was reasonably fair, the miners who secure the integrity of the network were rewarded with the new coins.

Thats not an argument that it was fair.

If early adopters had been rewarded 10 times more, you could make the same argument. 1000 times more, etc.

At some point, surely we'd consider the reward to the early adopters to be unfair?
What if they got 90% of the coins?

alb wrote: »

And the launch was public so anyway was free to be a miner.

Same point applies.

alb wrote: »

One issue was that the whole concept was so new that they just weren't many people that understood it and decided to mine some.

It's a bit different with other new crypto currencies now that BTC has paved the way, many new coin launches which were announced publicly without a pre-mine get quite a few miners straight away.

Overall I'm ok with early adoptors getting the best gains, it's what causes people to invest in risky disruptive technologies and why something like BTC could gather enough momentum to succeed in the first place.

Sure, it incentivises adoption. Definitely, the fact that early adopters get a reward is a factor in its success.
That doesn't mean that the exact reward they happened to get is fair.

alb wrote: »

As for not knowing who created it, don't oppressive governments already make fiat money

If you are a random dodgy government, you can't just print off as much money as you want, to buy as much, say, weapons as you want. If you try that, the people selling you the weapons wont accept your currency.

alb wrote: »

and the real people behind the Ripple company could be any of the dodgy people you mentioned also.

Im not arguing in favour of Ripple above Bitcoin. I agree that the problems with Ripple are worse, and that the people behind Ripple / XRP have too many of them. I'm just saying bitcoin also has problems.

alb wrote: »

At least with BTC they can't mess with the money supply, prevent people using it, shut down accounts, or shut down the whole thing. Having a certain proportion of the coins is all they can control.

Yes, that's true. Only the people with enough CPU power can mess with Bitcoin.

fibonaccii

As for it being open source, they say it will become open source when it comes out of beta, I dont really see it as a problem for the moment.

Yes the philosophical reasons and open control is brilliant in bitcoin but i don't think it matters that much to people, the whole banking system is controlled god knows how many people and we still trust them every day. I cant see it changing.

It think having a company behind a coin is a great thing and I really think the man on the street would be more confident using ripple (when out of beta) over bitcoin. As bitcoin really is not idiot proof.

I dont get why people drag the xrp vs bitcoin debate up, as its not really valid, xrp isnt trying to beat bitcoin, its just the native currency of the more wide scale program ripple. Both will help each other grow.

Also the comments about it being a scam also are not valid in my opinion. Google as already put money into the pot, this really should be enough to tell people its not a scam.

hypnoticaz

for your own consideration http://ripplescam.org/

fibonaccii

hypnoticaz wrote: »

for your own consideration http://ripplescam.org/

You dont think google had a look at that?

Set up by some hardcore bitcoiners who cant see that ripple will expand bitcoin.

Value Hunter

fibonaccii wrote: »

You dont think google had a look at that?

Set up by some hardcore bitcoiners who cant see that ripple will expand bitcoin.

Well maybe you could debate each point raised in the article and discuss why their invalid?

hypnoticaz

I agree with Value Hunter. Fibonaccii im curious - could you explain what "google had a look at that" means to you?

The ideal bitcoin world is about decentralization, where ripple seems completely the opposite to me. Bitcoin was made to avoid third party involved in handling "money" like banks and the ripple tries to act like one.
It is about anonymity, open source and transparency. I think ripple losses all of them at its foundations.

I instinctively felt something not right about the ripple idea so I am definately staying away from it and I didnt look too much into it so correct me if im wrong.

ofcourse everything has pros and cons i guess, probably it would somehow expand bitcoins popularity, but at what cost. I think its always good to look at the big picture.
.......

fergalr

hypnoticaz wrote: »

It is about anonymity,

Its not about anonymity; that wasnt a goal and its not the case in practice.
It can probably be used anonymously, with a lot of caution, but anonymity isnt a design goal of bitcoin, and its not a goal of the current bitcoin developers either.

fibonaccii

Ive covered most of the points already above, its people crying about ripple not being open source and the way that your usd is not real usd until you withdraw and about opencoin having all the xrp(who would you like to have the xrp) etc this is the way the world works, you can cry out for openness blah blah blah but at the end of the day its not going to change the way things are done.

Ripple is the bridge between all currencies fiat and virtual and for this real alone I have good faith.

Business is business and I think ripple will be welcomed to the main stream better then bitcoin. But as i said before its not a bitcoin compeitor, they should be used together.

fergalr

fibonaccii wrote: »

Ive covered most of the points already above, its people crying about ripple not being open source and the way that your usd is not real usd until you withdraw and about opencoin having all the xrp(who would you like to have the xrp) etc this is the way the world works, you can cry out for openness blah blah blah but at the end of the day its not going to change the way things are done.

Ripple is the bridge between all currencies fiat and virtual and for this real alone I have good faith.

Business is business and I think ripple will be welcomed to the main stream better then bitcoin. But as i said before its not a bitcoin compeitor, they should be used together.

If I offer to see you a 'fergalr-coin' for 10,000 euro, would you like to buy? (I'll give you the details after.)

Of course you wouldnt!
You've no reason to believe or trust this medium of exchange.


And you know that the world is full of people trying to take your money.
So you are sceptical by default.
The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the person or group trying to create the new system.


You've been talking up Ripple, which is entirely your prerogative. But don't expect anyone other than fools to be convinced without first getting some elementary questions answered, or seeing other evidence of value.


Your only answer to the elementary questions so far is 'Google took a punt on opencoin'.

Now, thats actually not a bad answer. It means there's something there. A real person somewhere probably gave a decent pitch. But 200k is peanuts for Google Ventures, who take longshot punts on all sorts of things all the time. Its not evidence of strong belief of anything on their part.


Ripple is interesting, it might go somewhere, but theres a bunch of questions to answer, and deep scepticism is perfectly rational at the moment. If you want to persuade other people of its merits, you've got to do better than your saying "blah blah blah" - thats like covering your eyes and being happy you cant see the lion any more :-)

fibonaccii

fergalr wrote: »

If I offer to see you a 'fergalr-coin' for 10,000 euro, would you like to buy? (I'll give you the details after.)

Of course you wouldnt!
You've no reason to believe or trust this medium of exchange.


And you know that the world is full of people trying to take your money.
So you are sceptical by default.
The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the person or group trying to create the new system.


You've been talking up Ripple, which is entirely your prerogative. But don't expect anyone other than fools to be convinced without first getting some elementary questions answered, or seeing other evidence of value.


Your only answer to the elementary questions so far is 'Google took a punt on opencoin'.

Now, thats actually not a bad answer. It means there's something there. A real person somewhere probably gave a decent pitch. But 200k is peanuts for Google Ventures, who take longshot punts on all sorts of things all the time. Its not evidence of strong belief of anything on their part.


Ripple is interesting, it might go somewhere, but theres a bunch of questions to answer, and deep scepticism is perfectly rational at the moment. If you want to persuade other people of its merits, you've got to do better than your saying "blah blah blah" - thats like covering your eyes and being happy you cant see the lion any more :-)

I neither had the strength or engery today to get into it. But all im saying is you have all these other coins(bitcoin,litecoin,feathercoin, etc). Google took a shot with opencoin, this should offer much more peace of mind then any other coin, look im not trying to convince anyone, but on paper ripple could really change online payments, we will just have to see how it unfolds.

Bitcoin was blasted for its links to crime and anonymity by the media, im wondering how the media will take up ripple. Ive a feeling that it will be portrayed as much sounder then bitcoin.

Who knows

fergalr

fibonaccii wrote: »

I neither had the strength or engery today to get into it. But all im saying is you have all these other coins(bitcoin,litecoin,feathercoin, etc). Google took a shot with opencoin, this should offer much more peace of mind then any other coin,

Google's venture capital wing threw a couple of quid at it for the craic, on the off chance Ripple goes somewhere. Thats honestly how to conceptualise the 200k; its not a serious commitment from Google, its a punt.

fibonaccii wrote: »

look im not trying to convince anyone, but on paper ripple could really change online payments, we will just have to see how it unfolds.

There's plenty of cool properties to the system. But there's a lot more than just having cool tech to these things. Honestly, the tech is the easy part. The hard part is incentivising adoption, gaining trust, governance etc.

fibonaccii wrote: »

Bitcoin was blasted for its links to crime and anonymity by the media,

The media talk a lot of rubbish about bitcoin. There are so many bad articles. The anonymity claim was one I had a personal axe to grind with, as its not anonymous if you use it naively. Im not sure theres that many people who have really grasped the implications of that - maybe no one has.

The media coverage is getting better though.

fibonaccii wrote: »

im wondering how the media will take up ripple. Ive a feeling that it will be portrayed as much sounder then bitcoin.

Who knows

Yeah, who knows - speculating on how the media will cover something in future is very difficult to do.

One thing about bitcoin though, you can't ignore, is that its got a big market cap, attention, momentum, and there are people trying to build companies for bitcoin. Thats a big edge on ripple. If serious business grows around it, any concerns about legitimacy will go away. Assuming it survives that long. I think it has a good shot, though.

Value Hunter

To be perfectly honest I have absolutely no trust in a company which tries to develop a new means of currency while maintaining 20% of that currency.

The excuse that they are a business that requires the 20% of outstanding currency for operational expenses and profit is completely bogus.

A legitimate company would make their profit off transaction and currency exchange fees

Could you imagine buying Apple money?? They make up a currency, give it a $100 billion valuation, sell it to the public but keep 20% for themselves?

Ridiculous

hypnoticaz

refering to google.. http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/

"Google is clearly positioning itself to become a force more powerful than governments in controlling and monitoring people’s behavior across the globe through all manner of different means, from cars that drive themselves (and are constantly tracked by a centralized Google database), to Google Glass which is akin to having a Google microchip in your forehead, to Google’s deep involvement in manipulating mass movements through social media as they did in Egypt and Tunisia."

Eric Shmidts quotations:

“We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

“We need a [verified] name service for people,” he said. “Governments will demand it.” (Chinese-style Internet control).

“We know everything you’re doing and the government can track you.”


Now that you told me google is involved in ripple I dislike ripple even more.

fergalr

hypnoticaz wrote: »

refering to google.. http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/

"Google is clearly positioning itself to become a force more powerful than governments in controlling and monitoring people’s behavior across the globe through all manner of different means, from cars that drive themselves (and are constantly tracked by a centralized Google database), to Google Glass which is akin to having a Google microchip in your forehead, to Google’s deep involvement in manipulating mass movements through social media as they did in Egypt and Tunisia."

Eric Shmidts quotations:

“We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

“We need a [verified] name service for people,” he said. “Governments will demand it.” (Chinese-style Internet control).

“We know everything you’re doing and the government can track you.”


Now that you told me google is involved in ripple I dislike ripple even more.

The 'conspiracy theory' forum is that way --->


...big corporates do pursue their own agendas. And given how powerful a multi billion dollar company can be, its only right that they get scrutiny.

So we should think critically Google Glass, and whether we want to live in a society where people can record and transmit video all the time.

But characterising Google Glass as 'having a google microchip in your forehead' is misleading. Its a recording and communication device, and yes we need to think whether we want to become a society where everyone has a head mounted camera; but its not a mind control chip. Characterising it as such stops people debating the real issues.

Saying that Google created the uprising in Egypt through media manipulation is also misleading. You need a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Misinformation, rumours, and 'conspiracy theories' take attention away from the real problems in the world.

hypnoticaz

fergalr wrote: »

The 'conspiracy theory' forum is that way --->


...big corporates do pursue their own agendas. And given how powerful a multi billion dollar company can be, its only right that they get scrutiny.

So we should think critically Google Glass, and whether we want to live in a society where people can record and transmit video all the time.

But characterising Google Glass as 'having a google microchip in your forehead' is misleading. Its a recording and communication device, and yes we need to think whether we want to become a society where everyone has a head mounted camera; but its not a mind control chip. Characterising it as such stops people debating the real issues.

Saying that Google created the uprising in Egypt through media manipulation is also misleading. You need a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Misinformation, rumours, and 'conspiracy theories' take attention away from the real problems in the world.

For me so far most conspiracies (not just theories) that I had look at seem to be the real problems.. I thought the real problem is 1% people controlling 99% wealth in the world.. logically its obvious they would conspire to keep this wealth and power from other people its just our human-animal nature.

There was one guy from google on bitcoin conference in London 2012 - Mike Hearn. Guess what was his idea that he proposed to make.. To chip phones for bitcoin payments..

So ya we have to answer ourselfs a question, do we want all the information -everything we do, we say (we think), we see and where we go to be transparent and available to a company cooperating with governments?

Cameras in tv's, xboxs, phones, glasses..
Are we all terrorist (which exists only on tv btw) to be spied on 24/7?
Hello George Orwell!

But sure lets keep it simple and pretend that (not to say conspiring) "acting or working together toward the same result or goal" doesn't take place.

fergalr

hypnoticaz wrote: »

For me so far most conspiracies (not just theories) that I had look at seem to be the real problems.. I thought the real problem is 1% people controlling 99% wealth in the world.. logically its obvious they would conspire to keep this wealth and power from other people its just our human-animal nature.

It is not at all obvious that the people in the 1% of wealth will conspire to keep wealth from everyone else.

You talk about Google, ok, lets consider the founders, Page and Brin. They are now billionaires, definitely in the top 1% of the world. But does that mean they are going to conspire with all the other billionaires to keep the rest of us down? Not necessarily.

They didn't start off life as billionaires. They are not children of the super elite, born to massive privilage. Their upbringing probably made them feel affiliated with other random people, rather than billionaires. E.g. Brin's parents were oppressed jews in Russia, and had it tough; his family came to the USA in difficult circumstances.

Your theory is that, well, now that the Google guys are powerful billionaires, its obvious that they'll conspire to keep the wealth from other people.

But is that really how you think people work? If you became super rich, do you think your perspective would suddenly change so that you'd want to go around controlling everyone else? You'd just forget about your experience not being wealthy, and forget about all the other people you met before you were wealthy? Suddenly you wouldn't care about anyone apart from other billionaires?

If thats how you think people work, then I think your model of the world is wrong.

Yes, power can corrupt. But I don't believe its an automatic unstoppable force.

If you want to argue that these guys, from relatively normal (in the developed world) beginnings, are now part of a big conspiracy to keep the rest of us down, you've got to do more than just say 'well, they are rich'.

Clear thinking requires evidence for unlikely claims.

hypnoticaz wrote: »

There was one guy from google on bitcoin conference in London 2012 - Mike Hearn. Guess what was his idea that he proposed to make.. To chip phones for bitcoin payments..

Do you think all the random Google engineers are part of the conspiracy? But they aren't super wealthy - why would they conspire against the rest of us? Against the average (first-world) person, who they probably identify with more than they identify with the super rich?

hypnoticaz wrote: »

So ya we have to answer ourselfs a question, do we want all the information -everything we do, we say (we think), we see and where we go to be transparent and available to a company cooperating with governments?

Cameras in tv's, xboxs, phones, glasses..
Are we all terrorist (which exists only on tv btw) to be spied on 24/7?
Hello George Orwell!

Those are all great things for us to consider and reason about. Do we want to live in a society with cameras everywhere, especially given recent revelations about how governments get access to the information stores in large corporations.

We should absolutely be thinking about those issues.

My point is that when you start talking about grand conspiracies, without evidence, then you distract from the discussion of those real issues. Furthermore, you remove credibility from others who talk about the real issues, as it encourages others to write off all the concerns as 'conspiracy theories'.

hypnoticaz

Did you hear of Bilderberg meetings? Do you know who goes there? Do you think that some of them travel thousands miles to meet up for cup of tea? Cause whatever is discussed there is kept secret.. why? and what is Eric Shmidt the chairman of google doing there with all the ministers and bankers? sipping the tea right?

I don't understand why by talking about conspiracy anybody should loose credibility.. Oh ya i forgot we are living in brainwashed society and if somebody mention the word conspiracy he must be crazy and everything he says can't be true, cause its crazy talk

You said.. "Those are all great things for us to consider and reason about. Do we want to live in a society with cameras everywhere, especially given recent revelations about how governments get access to the information stores in large corporations.

We should absolutely be thinking about those issues."

Thats a pity tho, cause nobody cares what we think. People like us are not deciding how it is gonna be. Its the people with power.

Everything i say is based on living proofs.. If somebody doesn't believe in something whatever it is - my advice.. do some research first before you even say anything about it.

fibonaccii

haha, ill reply in depth to all this later, gave me quite the chuckle

fibonaccii

Bump

XRP 15 = 1 USD

$$$ from China