And your point? You are just repeating what I already just pointed out.
Edit: The point is that it has to rely on "reputable parties" in order to fend of Sybil attacks. Bitcoin was an innovation because it did not have to rely on "reputable parties" and now Ripple is taking a step back in the opposite direction.
I agree it's taking a step backward in a pure technological sense. However, this step backward from Bitcoin is necessary to move
everything forward.
To me, Ripple's failure would have no impact on Bitcoin, and Ripple's success could mean a good chance for Bitcoin to grow.
Ya. It just means that I have to rely on Bitcoin to buy magic carpets from Iran and to make donations to wikileaks. But I still think that Ripple could be made better by incorporating superior technologies like Bitcoin with the concept of gateways, or some other method of increasing the decentralization of exchanges.