Quote from: JoelKatz on February 22, 2013, 03:56:15 AM

Quote from: jancsika on February 22, 2013, 03:53:09 AM

Bitcoin uses the coinbase stuff to hand out the initial distribution. Ripple XRP is handed out by a single corporation. A single corporation in control of 80% of the currency is a textbook definition of central authority.

Of course. The design of Ripple doesn't require a central authority. But until it is decentralized, it will effectively have one.

It doesn't "effectively" have one-- it _has_ one. And that means the implementation is, at present, effectively a centralized payment network (and I meant to write "effectively" there, and will explain if you truly don't understand the implications). Additionally, the design-- where someone almost certainly said something like, "Hey, to bootstrap the currency why don't we _design_ it so that 80% of the currency goes to a corporation"-- is a design for a _future_ decentralized digital currency that relies on a centralized body to get it there. If you're going to be honest you have to call it a centralized payment system with the potential to become decentralized. That's one of the costs to designing it this way.

Furthermore, it is _highly_ relevant and reassuring to hear that Ripple is committed to getting rid of a current central point of failure. On the other hand, it was more like a curiosity to read Satoshi saying he wished verification had gone to GPUs a little later than it did. That's the difference between a centralized and decentralized approach to bootstrapping.