4 ms·

You are mistaken. The consensus process does not allow for someone to "arbitrarily change the rules on a whim or influence the outcome of a transaction on a on

You are mistaken. The consensus process does not allow for someone to "arbitrarily change the rules on a whim or influence the outcome of a transaction on a one-off basis". Here is a youtube explanation of consensus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1QVb1vlC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1QVb1vlC0 and here is an explanation on the Ripple wiki: https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus and a brief explanation on stackexchange: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7550/how-does-ripple-solve-the-double-spend-problem https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7550/how-does-ri... You are correct that I am involved in the project. I think Ripple consensus is a more practical, faster, more secure, and less wasteful solution to the double spend problem than proof of work. Happy to entertain your arguments to the contrary.

Phlarp 12y ago
Centralized authority in the form of the corporation that employs you. It's generally considered proper (at least here on hacker news) to disclose any potential conflicts of interest upfront, particularly when making posts discussing an industry or company in which you are employed.
- philrapo 12y ago
  >Centralized authority in the form of the corporation that employs you. So... it's wrong to work for a company? I dont understand your argument, sorry. >It's generally considered proper (at least here on hacker news) to disclose any potential conflicts of interest I wasn't aware of the HN disclosure policy, but I'm not trying to hide something. Does this disclosure policy also require people who own bitcoin or work on a bitcoin related project to disclose the conflict of interest before posting on this thread? I find it hard to believe that this is the standard. If you have a constructive argument on consensus, still happy to hear it...

Phlarp 12y ago

Centralized authority in the form of the corporation that employs you. It's generally considered proper (at least here on hacker news) to disclose any potential conflicts of interest upfront, particularly when making posts discussing an industry or company in which you are employed.

philrapo 12y ago
>Centralized authority in the form of the corporation that employs you. So... it's wrong to work for a company? I dont understand your argument, sorry. >It's generally considered proper (at least here on hacker news) to disclose any potential conflicts of interest I wasn't aware of the HN disclosure policy, but I'm not trying to hide something. Does this disclosure policy also require people who own bitcoin or work on a bitcoin related project to disclose the conflict of interest before posting on this thread? I find it hard to believe that this is the standard. If you have a constructive argument on consensus, still happy to hear it...