[PaulHoule]

Personally I like Ripple.

I like permissioned blockchains.

Why is it that blockchains weren't invented sooner? I'll contend that you'd be laughed out of any distributed systems conference if you suggested any protocol where the workload capacity doesn't increase when you add nodes.

If you have ten traders who trade under a buttonwood tree, then having ten copies of the database makes the system bulletproof. If you have ten million traders, there is no additional gain, but there is a huge cost because you have ten million copies of the database.

Blockchains attract people who know nothing about money or technology the same way that pot startups attract stoners. It's just a bad scene.

[foobarchu]

There's the additional issue that blockchains are almost always the wrong tool for the job. It turns out that immutability is not really a desirable property in a system where humans are involved, because humans always introduce mistakes that need to eventually be undoable.

[jki275]

There's no need for a blockchain if you only allow ten validators. You simply need a database.

Ripple is nothing more than a bank coin. It's not a cryptocurrency.

[deweller]

Check out Facebook-sponsored Libra. It is a federated, permissioned blockchain that uses some concepts pioneered by Ripple.

[vorpalhex]

Unfortunately CBD is probably the next Blockchain... Theoretical benefits, hampered by real world ponzi schemes.