Generating value for its equity holders is the principal goal of a company, but you know that already. In that perspective, homing on the steepest growth gradiant isn't lazy but effective.
Something is wrong with the economy; ever stop to wonder why? Greed is not Good.
Greed is human and will be there no matter what paradigm you shift to.
Look at the Bitcoin community. Is that the blueprint of the ideal society?
Unfortunately, the world is the way it is, and only things that take into account the reality of our world and come up with realistic solutions can have an actual impact on it. Had Ripple been following libertarian ideals, it wouldn't have seized the oppotunity to partner with banks, and it's about another firm we would be discussing instead.
That is lazy. "the world is the way it is", so we just have to play along, rather than ever consider it could be bettered!
It's not lazy but realistic. It doesn't mean you have to give up trying to make it better. But you can't turn it on its head overnight and pretend that going forward the world is just going to be that fantasy place you would like it to be. Making the world a better place starts by looking at it with objective eyes, the beautiful things and the ugly things, be able to tell what is in human nature and what can get better, and think realistically about what you can try to change, where you can get the most impact for the least cost, and how you can avoid hurting people in the process.
The whole point of blockchain technology is to distribute power and wealth. That's a fundamental concept that Ripple seems to want to bypass. Such attitude is at the root of why there is an economic crisis. It's irresponsible.
No, the whole point of blockchain technology is to allow trustless resolution of concurrent access to a distributed databased structured as a chained list of records. Practically speaking, the main effect is to desintermediate the trustees in all sorts of automated transactions that require such concurrent use of a database. But that's pretty much it. Anything more you will slap on top is just your interpretation of the implication of the technology mixed up together with your political leaning and subjective view of the world.
By the way, be careful with how you wield the "redistribution of wealth" rethoric as it just makes Bitshares look like communism, as evidenced by the long trollish thread on Bitcointalk where Bitshares is painted as USSR.
It's not like the world has to choose a project exclusively among libertarian cryptocurrencies, and adapt itself to the project and its philosophical ideals. It doesn't work like that.
"The way it works is that" .. "the practical reality of the world in its current paradigm"
Give over.. that's just fallacy, chatter as faux academic authority, doesn't make truth and is not persuasive.
Oh ok, so you mean the world actually has to chose exclusively among libertarian cryptocurrencies and adapt itself to the project and its philosophical ideals? Glad to hear that, it will make things so much easier indeed.
The point of my post is down to earth: Ripple has smelt an opportunity with the banking sector, has managed to gain a strong foothold in the place and is creating some in-draft for other complementary projects. Bitshares is a good candidate to jump on the bandwagon.
You sound like you're trying to exploit BitShares because it has what Ripple lacks. I can understand Ripple would want a partner like BitShares but understand that BitShares is the stronger partner.
I just see a strong synergy potential between the two projects. Both have got top talents and distinctive advantages that are almost entirely complementary. It's also saden me that such a potent technology as Bitshares is having so little visibility. If you want to give a negative twist to it and antagonize the Ripple community for showing interest in BitShares it's your choice. I hope other BitShares people are a bit more open minded.
Ripple has a corrupted sense of what blockchain technology can do; it opted for the trivial near old banking remittance use of XRP as water but it needs to do what BitShares already can in order to survive; the reality of others like BitShares doing remittances without the wasted wealth value in XRP, will be too much to bare.
I don't get what you mean by "corrupted sense of blochain technology" or "XRP as water" or "wasted wealth value".
As far as I can tell, Ripple seem to be doing just fine these days. Not sure what you think is threatening its survival.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not unrealistic; others have noted that solving today's problems is often better than perpetually chasing perfection - Counterparty dev suggested that a while back too.
If Ripple could offer BitShares access to real markets, then I'd be all for that. You need to understand though that what makes BitShares and others effective, is what has Ripple compromised.
At the pace Ripple is expanding, it's only a matter of time before some real world exchange starts using Ripple as backend.
Open Source works for a reason and you cannot just "clone the latest crypto" if you do not have the skills to do that. There are too many examples of closed source vulnerabilities; so, don't mistake closed source as an option to hide incompetence.
I'm not trying to start a debate about closed source vs open source. I'm just stating that given the fact I don't see the state and finance industry dying of a stroke any time soon, I much rather have opensource and public networks like Ripple and Bitshares seize the opportunities and put a foot in the place than let the old gard catchup and position themselves in the cryptospace with their own closed source and private networks. It won't be an instant utopia, but it's a first step in the right direction that will open the gates for further change and help clearing the massive communication fsck up that has led to the demonization of cryptocurrencies.
Ripple may have strengths and partnering with BitShares could be useful but be realistic about why; and do not see everything as an opportunity to exploit others!
That's petty accusations. I'll pass on it.
Gifting ye old banksters another monopoly, is not going to solve any problem but their own. The world is progressing and Ripple cannot just sit by and do what old banking has done.
You don't get it: banksters have already the monopoly of money and the power to outlaw crypto. Crypto hasn't always been legal, its liberalization is fairly recent and David Cameron's latest blunder is proof that the idea of a general ban of crypto is floating in the air and that we can't consider it for granted in the current climate. We are litterally walking on eggs and it would take as little as allegations that terrorist are using blockchain technology (false flag or not) to tip the balance. Show proactively that crypto and blockchain technology are positive inventions that can propel our economies into a new era of growth and progress and we will prevail but it will take some time. On the other hand if we act like a fanatical and uncompromising bunch of revolutionaries and rock the boat too much, we'll just give a good excuse to the state to defend itself and make sure that these "subversive" technologies can't endanger the global economy. Look at what we got out of the reckless way filesharing was started... the DMCA. I really don't think that it was a wining move.
Again, I'm not saying that I approve the state. I do perceive it as a violent, corrupt and self-serving aberration, and want its demise as strongly as you do, but I also understand that it's extremely powerful and basically holding the world together, and that trying to replace it altogether in one go is just not realistic or even desirable given the price to pay for that. If we are right in our analysis that we have reached the technological level to spawn a new fairer world order, we need to understand that this has to be done with the utmost mindfulness and wisdom and that a long term strategy is more likely than not needed to perfom what essentially amounts to a cerebral spine transplant. We also should not forget that the state is still composed of very normal people like you and me who are caught in the system, don't approve it but have to follow the rules, and would equally want to change it to something better, and that whatever we do with the law and the way it's being intepreted, we will still need these people to run the economy. So no need to needlessly antogonize everybody. That doesn't serve our objectives.
One element of your posts that I agree with is that I expect there may come a point where there is a split between those who are unrealistic and those who want to get something done. However, that is a balance that works both ways. You can do too little too!
I agree with that but if your last sentence is referring to Ripple, I don't think it's a really fair to decide arbitrarily that they are doing too little. They have a strategy that is sound, clear and consistant, and so far they have executed it greatly. That may not send us directly where we really want to go but that gets us closer and still counts as a point scored by our camp. At least Ripple is doing something, and not trolling all day long and partaking in vain internal rivalry like the Bitcoin community has been doing most of last year.