Well, RCL is a very worthy technology for a mostly decenteralized settlement network, I hope to see better node decentralization in the future. The same does *not* apply to XRP IMO. 

Bitcoin and Ripple are *very* different projects - I do not find it entirely accurate to compare the projects in this way. I don't want to argue about the hypothetical collusion between Chinese miners; we can do that some other time :). 
>Ripple is committed to making this happen and has absolutely no incentive not to make it happen.

I disagree with this statement. See, I just don't like taking your word for it.

Are we talking about the RCL or XRP... Becasue I have a realistic understanding of the security that Bitcoin offers. 

>The problem with bitcoin is that the stakeholders are chosen by external, inherently centralizing, factors. And worse, the stakeholders have a strong incentive to see the transaction fees be high

I think there are a lot more to these two statements than you make it seem. I agree with most of what you detail, although with with many small caveats. I think there is a place in this space for many different systems - each offering degrees of 'security', 'decentralization' and such. XRP and BTC will coexist dispite their large differences in centralization.

Not to mention that some actors are much more selfish than others.
Thus, you have inherently different levels of selfishness which ultimately lead to the emergence of some dominance hierarchy that creates a disproportionate power differential over time.

As you, I am not saying that this is bad, but I am far more willing to place my trust in a company that has something to lose from fucking up (e.g.: 20 billion Ripple). The stake that the owner's of the company hold are what insures their integrity.