Ripple CTO Takes a Shot at Bitcoin
David Schwartz, the Ripple Chief Technology Officer, just took a shot on Bitcoin on his Twitter handle.
A new study shows China controls 74% of bitcoin. Does that sound decentralized to you? https://t.co/4Oa68QlHLu
— David Schwartz (@JoelKatz) October 9, 2018
David has been in the news a lot for advocating Ripple. He has brought into light time and again the fact that Ripple is a lot more decentralized than Bitcoin.
He has been recognized by Forbes and has been interviewed by them. In the interview, he talked about Ripple by saying:
“We want to create a payment network like SWIFT. But one where the settlement, the actual movement of money, the actual plumbing underneath the surface, would be a decentralized, open network. The endgame is just money moving invisibly, as easily as information.”
In the interview, he also talked about the problems he faced with the centralized control of money:
“If no bank will do business with me, I don’t get a hearing in a court of law, I don’t get to read the law, I don’t get to confront my accusers. They’re enforcing the law in a way that doesn’t have any of the normal protections that law enforcement is supposed to have. And that really, philosophically, bothers me. This idea of disintermediating these shadow regulators that are not democratically accountable and are not elected but act as policemen kind of resonated with me. That got me into the bitcoin community.”
In a live stream, a user asked him:
“Will it ever be technically feasible to source liquidity from multiple pools (like two or more exchanges) and recombine them into a single atomic payment that’s settled at a destination exchange?
I’m thinking along the lines of something similar to incremental filling of orders on XRP Ledger decentralized exchange that consumes offers from multiple sources. In the RippleNet case, it would mean constructing synthetic order books that have offers from XRP/Fiat pair from multiple exchanges.
I understand that this might not be possible with ILP but perhaps some other solution?”
His reply to this question was:
“Congratulations on asking the most technical question today! I believe it is actually possible to do this with ILP, however I don’t know if anyone will ever go to the trouble of building the infrastructure necessary to do it. The philosophy of most of those working on ILP is that it makes more sense to “stream” payments in multiple directions, see which direction is giving you the best rate, and increase the payments you stream in that direction. This is cheap, fast, efficient, and simple to implement, however, it doesn’t guarantee that you will be able to make the entire payment. The hope is that we can design systems that fix that problem at higher levels and keep the money flow layers as simple as possible — kind of the opposite of lightning’s approach.”
Another user asked him about his views on XRP being labeled as a security. To this, he replied:
“Ultimately, this will be up to the SEC to decide. We believe that XRP should not be classified as a security. XRP does not give ownership shares in Ripple or any other entity, XRP exists independent of Ripple. If Ripple went away tomorrow, XRP would continue to exist and have the same utility it does today. Neither Ripple nor any single entity can exert unilateral control over the XRP Ledger.”
He has even released a full-length blog on Ripple Insights explaining how XRP is inherently decentralized in nature. In that blog, he said:
“The XRP Ledger uses a consensus protocol that relies on a majority of validators to record and verify transactions without incentivizing any one party (this is one of the main reasons why I began working on XRP Ledger more than six years ago). Validators are different from miners because they aren’t paid when they order and validate transactions. Today, these validators operate at locations across the globe and are run by a broad range of individuals, institutions, asset exchanges and more.”