3 ms·

>I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority". You are wrong on that. Every node locally applie

by noxer 6y ago

>I believe the consensus model for XRP is "ask some trusted nodes what the state is and believe the majority". You are wrong on that. Every node locally applies all the rules to all transaction. There is no way a rule can be broken because your node listens to other who broke the rules. If all your trusted nodes would break the rule your node would simply stop and ask you to connect to proper nodes. The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. There is no "wrong way" in this case its arbitrary which side the network goes the only thing that matter is that everyone goes the same way. Which is archives if everyone sided with their surrounding majority. Its very important to understand that if someone would have the control over which side it goes in such a situation he could do absolutely nothing with this "power" as both ways must be valid in the first place. The only person who "loses out" is the one who attempts a double spend because he has no way to know which Tx will success and which will fail. But no honest participants cares about that. If you attempt a double sends you voluntary let the network pick one.

gruez 6y ago
>You are wrong on that. >The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. so basically "if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"? It's better than trusting the entire state to the majority of nodes, but still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.
- noxer 6y ago
  >"if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say" Yes but also no. There is no trust needed because what the other nodes say does not define whats correct its arbitrary. Its only relevant if 2 or more equal good AND correct ways exist. You aren't listing to others to find out the "right" way you solely listen to other so everyone choose the same. >still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms. Not at all. If there is a double spend attempt your validator node picks one at "random" (the one it revived first) it then tells every node to include this one an discard the other. All other do that too completely on their own (decentral). Only if this does not lead to 80% agreement everyone is tasked to adjust and vote again. So your node looks what the nodes around them voted and switches if needed to the majority. There is no central anything that tells your node to switch. Your node does so solely because your node doesn't care which way to go but it wants to go the same way ass all others. All this does it it breaks ties. If there would be a near 50/50 split or 33/33/33 for 3 conflicting transaction, this is guaranteed to shift to something near 100% after some re-voting. Because the existing "majority" grows faster with every re-vote if everyone adjust by these rules. And that's the sole goal. We want the network go agree.

by noxer 6y ago

gruez 6y ago

>You are wrong on that. >The consensus majority is only needed if there are 2 or more way to make valid (not breaking any rules) forward progress (aka a double spend attempt) Only in this case nodes side with the majority of their trusted nodes. so basically "if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say"? It's better than trusting the entire state to the majority of nodes, but still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms.

noxer 6y ago
>"if there's a double spend just trust whatever the majority of the trusted nodes say" Yes but also no. There is no trust needed because what the other nodes say does not define whats correct its arbitrary. Its only relevant if 2 or more equal good AND correct ways exist. You aren't listing to others to find out the "right" way you solely listen to other so everyone choose the same. >still quite centralized compared to other consensus mechanisms. Not at all. If there is a double spend attempt your validator node picks one at "random" (the one it revived first) it then tells every node to include this one an discard the other. All other do that too completely on their own (decentral). Only if this does not lead to 80% agreement everyone is tasked to adjust and vote again. So your node looks what the nodes around them voted and switches if needed to the majority. There is no central anything that tells your node to switch. Your node does so solely because your node doesn't care which way to go but it wants to go the same way ass all others. All this does it it breaks ties. If there would be a near 50/50 split or 33/33/33 for 3 conflicting transaction, this is guaranteed to shift to something near 100% after some re-voting. Because the existing "majority" grows faster with every re-vote if everyone adjust by these rules. And that's the sole goal. We want the network go agree.