1st. Is it safe to say that drastic change cannot occur without killing all of us? Drastic change occurred with the beginnings of the internet. It was not long after that the internet became a store of informational wealth unlike any we have ever seen before. It was only when governmental regulation came in that we started seeing the beginnings of an implementation based entirely on psychotic levels of fear, which slowly (
Progressively) turned into a system of passive dominance over the entirety of society. Now who guards the guardians?
Has Linux killed people because it enables anyone to build their own OS from kernel? Linux has the potential to be disruptive, but humanity has the ability to create and adapt far more quickly than you give it credit for. We can and have very quickly adapted in many instances throughout history without the inclusion of "the elite" to disruptive change and have built some amazing marvels based on decentralized collaboration and Self-Governance. In fact the Early America is a perfect example of this.
Sometimes when a person gets Cancer, the Tumor needs cut out. Yes it is disruptive to the body's systems, but it is necessary because otherwise it can metastasize. This is not the time for "Progressive" change...aka giving the power back to the old world elite as opposed to realizing our own power to change things for the better.
2nd.
From my point of view, Ripple is doing the wisest thing by pursuing progressive change instead of disruption. Instead of going frontal against the establishment like the Bitcoin community is doing and trying to shove through the state and financial industry's throat a win-lose vision of the world where they would go the way of the dodo within a couple of year and be replaced by a bunch of fanatical libertarians, a)Ripple Labs is projecting an inclusive win-win vision of the world where the state, the financial industry, the software industry and the people at large can work together to build a better and fairer system. b)Of course, as a result of this vision, the state and the financial industry would survive but they will have lost some of their power and opacity and will have taken the right turn to transform into something better. c)Ripple is like a trojan horse in the establishment.
a) Is this why the token's original issuance was so centralized? Is this why the same small group who initially started the network are the only ones who can vote new members into their network based on "reputation"? Let's call it like it really is. An exclusive blockchain of IOU's that were initially given almost totally to a very exclusive group of people. The only "win-win" is when those original exclusive members decide to give power to another group of people. What is worse? No matter what the holders of XRP think about it, there is literally nothing they can do but sell. If the old-world elites keep printing money from their free printing press, they can pump the value of Ripple indefinitely until the masses go into tulip frenzy buying it. And if the Fed could produce
16 Trillion Dollars in a Secret Slush Fund to Prop Up their Ponzi, do you really think they are worried about being able to keep something like Ripple stable after the frenzy bubble bursts?
b) Blockchain technology has the potential to track EVERY transaction a person makes.
Never before in history was this possible. With the "elite" from the old paradigm at the helm of Ripple Labs' roll-out, to say that they will not use this against us is insanity. Furthermore, to call a bunch of Libertarian-leaning citizens "fanatical" isn't biased??
You can call it "fanatical libertarian"ism if you want, but facts are facts. I don't know what world you are living in, but I live in one where all the common person's natural rights have been stolen from them with the stroke of a pen all in the name of a threat statistically less dangerous than falling in the shower--"terrorism". If they spy on us in everything we do through in the current system...implementing something like Ripple is a trojan horse against the people. Not the other way around.
c) To track a person's transactions is to track their most intimate interactions...which is a very dangerous road to walk. Issuing a substantial majority of a blockchain's tokens to a small, exclusive team of individuals who then use their leverage as a means by which they can gain entry into the "New Guard" is by no means a trojan horse for the establishment.
Of course, this is a good time to tell everyone they should be careful of something called
"COINTELPRO". Klosure you are fooling no one. Who are you really, btw?
If Ripple will make us more free and take power away from the
"Elites'" openly-stated objectives then Google and the internet of today would have done it.
Guess what happened to Google. Attending Illegal Summits on "World Governance"...
3rd
Now, as far as Bitshares is concerned, I believe that it should seek to work hand in hand with Ripple and Ethereum. Ripple Labs is very professional and reasonnable, they are focusing on upgrading money markets, forex, payment and settlements and becoming the interface between the crypto-space and the financial industry. They don't have strong views on other niches that blockchain technology is bound to take over. Although their initial stance was to cover a wide spectrum, they have become reasonable as experience has shown them that 80+ employees is barely enough to chew the payment and forex space alone. The initial plan to integrate contracts in Ripple has turned into a non-profit generic approach to handling contracts: Codius. As the recent news show, they are more than happy to help Ethereum leverage on Codius to handle their Oracles, and it is very likely that this collaboration will pave the way to an ecosystem where Ethereum will be the default trustless contact engine, Ripple the default trustless foreign exchange, money market and payment rails, and the Codius the default external interface to interact with the (non-trustless) outside world.
Yep. This would be very very profitable for all parties. It would also be very interesting to see BitShares become 1000's of chains that compete against both Ripple (Obama's ex-advisor) and Ethereum (Goldman Sachs) on every level because BitShares decided to be the only chain that invited competition in the space rather than shutting it out.
It is hard to say what the heck Ethereum will really look like on a technical level at this point because all they ever do is talk theory to produce hype.
4) 3D printing, Autonomous Local Agriculture and a list of other technologies too long to cover here are coming and the only way that the "elite" can control it is to get the first-mover's advantage and ensure they use their Dark Funds to secretly prop up any and all foundational Transactional Technologies whose tech is potentially beneficial to them and attempt to break confidence in potential challengers to their systems.
BitShares has the potential to be the challenger to these systems by building a completely decentralized infrastructure. The only thing I agree with you on is that what I am proposing is far slower
However, I must say one thing---the general population will not care about any of my points. They will see the price of blockchain technologies growing substantially and will sell out for a temporary hit of the cocaine-like sensations of "choosing a winner before it wins". Ripple and Ethereum will both be on that list.
I personally am biased, Klosure, because I believe people do not need you or any other individual who is afraid of the consequences of those who are bold enough to know they can change the world and to do it. Yes, Ripple will do well. Ethereum will even do well. I'm simply saying when we are ready, we will not need Ripple or Ethereum. They will need us. Unfortunately it seems we (as in society...not BitShares and its many blossoms) are starting to go in the wrong direction.