4 ms·

From the FAQ Page: >What about Ripple/IOTA/...? >As with Proof of Stake we are aware of no existing, alternative protocol that has solved the problem of distr

by noxer 5y ago

From the FAQ Page: >What about Ripple/IOTA/...? >As with Proof of Stake we are aware of no existing, alternative protocol that has solved the problem of distributed consensus. Usually these approaches have resulted in some form of centralized authority becoming an important factor in the security model. >Of course a centralized systems can achieve a far greater energy efficiency. Here we want to compare only distributed systems and their properties. ---------- Everyone should know by now that Ripple is a company not a blockchain. And the XRPL is fully decentral with no authority at all. See XRPL.org

makomk 5y ago
Ripple is pretty much fully centralised last I checked - there's a list of nodes controlled by the company and a few other companies involved in setting it up which decide which version of transaction history is valid, and nodes outside that list have no say in their decisions. In theory you can use your own list of nodes, but it's a bad idea to ever do so. Since who you choose to trust has no effect on the Ripple-sanctioned set of transactions and you really don't want your version of history to ever diverge from theirs because then you'll disagree with everyone else on the planet about which transactions are valid, diverging from their chosen trusted list has only downsides.
- noxer 5y ago
  Did you read the post? Ripple is a company ofc its centralized. The XRPL is the "blockchain" and its NOT controlled by Ripple. They maintain the open source code that does not give any control over the running network at all. >Ripple-sanctioned set of transactions Thats a made up thing. There is not a single Tx that has ever been "sanctioned" on the XRPL Its also simply not possible. You are completely misinformed or intentionally spreading FUD. The time when Ripple ran the whole network is long gone.
fastball 5y ago
Does XRPL no longer have a unique node list that is mostly under the control of Ripple (because they maintain the default that clients automatically use)? https://cryptobriefing.com/is-xrp-decentralized-ripples-involvement-cryptocurrency/ https://cryptobriefing.com/is-xrp-decentralized-ripples-invo... Could the system still be decentralized in practice? Sure. But the fact that the Ripple CTO claimed XRP might be more decentralized than BTC or ETH makes me take the rest of their claims with huge buckets of salt.
- noxer 5y ago
  Unique node lists (UNLs) are simply lists of nodes someone provides that they think meets their standards. Everyone can publish an UNL, it doesn't give any power or requires any privilege. If you run a node you can use one or many UNLs or make you own. There are 3 UNLs published at the time of writing. https://xrpl.org/technical-faq.html#what-are-unique-node-lists-unls https://xrpl.org/technical-faq.html#what-are-unique-node-lis... >Ripple CTO claimed XRP might be more decentralized than BTC Hows that relevant he can assume whatever he wants ryt? We can not measure decentralization in a meaningful way. His guess is as good as yours. BTW hes a Bitcoin developer. Also I assume what he meant to say with that is that China could gain control over 50+% of the mining power. On the XRPL no country could seize control or more accurately they could but it would not have any effect. Double spends are not possible by gaining control over 50+%. You could only trick the nodes you control which is literally as useless as it sounds. And ofc all other nodes would simply ignore any node that is assumed to be compromised or malfunctioning. The BTC network cant "ignore miners". If it would be know that someone has 50+% hash power there would be no solution.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Unique node lists (UNLs) are simply lists of nodes someone provides that they think meets their standards. Everyone can publish an UNL, it doesn't give any power or requires any privilege. If you run a node you can use one or many UNLs or make you own. doesn't using your own UNL basically equate to a hard fork in the event that the nodes don't agree?
    - noxer 5y ago
      >doesn't using your own UNL basically equate to a hard fork in the event that the nodes don't agree? Short answer: No, if one or a few dont agree they are just ignored. If the majority (>50%) does then it halts and if a quorum is reached (>80%) it could fork. long answer: Its complicated. Under normal conditions nothing happens but in edge cases (large node outages/physical disconnection/like if and undersea cable is cut) it could fragment. This can be avoided if the core of the nodes mostly has each other on the UNL. But since we cant and most importantly should not enforce that its encourages to create and publish an UNL if you think the existing UNLs are not good. Its also encourages to use an UNL with large overlap to other UNLs This leads to the assumption that almost everyone uses one of the published UNLs with minor changes (mostly additions) else if you had mayor changes you would publish an UNL to convince other to also drop/add specific nodes (after all if you have a reason you probably want to tell everyone) Since the UNLs overlap the real nodes UNLs should too and forking is not possible with large overlap. On a high overlap it could only halt if too many nodes are separated/offline which is the wanted behavior rather than making uncertain progress. There is a amendment coming (most likely) for negative UNL where nodes can signal that they lost contact to a node and temporary remove it form the UNL. This would reduce the risk of halting if large percentage of nodes are temporary lost. Instead of 20% it would tolerate more nodes to go offline before the network would halt. It basically adjust the 80% quorum requirement down with every node that goes offline but has a minimum of 60% of the original 100%. 60% is the minimum to prevent forking/fragmenting again. only 51% would be needed if the UNLs would had perfect 100% overlap, so its a bit higher to compensate for the fact that UNLs dont have 100% overlap. https://xrpl.org/negative-unl.html https://xrpl.org/negative-unl.html

by noxer 5y ago

makomk 5y ago

Ripple is pretty much fully centralised last I checked - there's a list of nodes controlled by the company and a few other companies involved in setting it up which decide which version of transaction history is valid, and nodes outside that list have no say in their decisions. In theory you can use your own list of nodes, but it's a bad idea to ever do so. Since who you choose to trust has no effect on the Ripple-sanctioned set of transactions and you really don't want your version of history to ever diverge from theirs because then you'll disagree with everyone else on the planet about which transactions are valid, diverging from their chosen trusted list has only downsides.

noxer 5y ago
Did you read the post? Ripple is a company ofc its centralized. The XRPL is the "blockchain" and its NOT controlled by Ripple. They maintain the open source code that does not give any control over the running network at all. >Ripple-sanctioned set of transactions Thats a made up thing. There is not a single Tx that has ever been "sanctioned" on the XRPL Its also simply not possible. You are completely misinformed or intentionally spreading FUD. The time when Ripple ran the whole network is long gone.

fastball 5y ago

Does XRPL no longer have a unique node list that is mostly under the control of Ripple (because they maintain the default that clients automatically use)? https://cryptobriefing.com/is-xrp-decentralized-ripples-involvement-cryptocurrency/ https://cryptobriefing.com/is-xrp-decentralized-ripples-invo... Could the system still be decentralized in practice? Sure. But the fact that the Ripple CTO claimed XRP might be more decentralized than BTC or ETH makes me take the rest of their claims with huge buckets of salt.

noxer 5y ago
Unique node lists (UNLs) are simply lists of nodes someone provides that they think meets their standards. Everyone can publish an UNL, it doesn't give any power or requires any privilege. If you run a node you can use one or many UNLs or make you own. There are 3 UNLs published at the time of writing. https://xrpl.org/technical-faq.html#what-are-unique-node-lists-unls https://xrpl.org/technical-faq.html#what-are-unique-node-lis... >Ripple CTO claimed XRP might be more decentralized than BTC Hows that relevant he can assume whatever he wants ryt? We can not measure decentralization in a meaningful way. His guess is as good as yours. BTW hes a Bitcoin developer. Also I assume what he meant to say with that is that China could gain control over 50+% of the mining power. On the XRPL no country could seize control or more accurately they could but it would not have any effect. Double spends are not possible by gaining control over 50+%. You could only trick the nodes you control which is literally as useless as it sounds. And ofc all other nodes would simply ignore any node that is assumed to be compromised or malfunctioning. The BTC network cant "ignore miners". If it would be know that someone has 50+% hash power there would be no solution.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Unique node lists (UNLs) are simply lists of nodes someone provides that they think meets their standards. Everyone can publish an UNL, it doesn't give any power or requires any privilege. If you run a node you can use one or many UNLs or make you own. doesn't using your own UNL basically equate to a hard fork in the event that the nodes don't agree?
  - noxer 5y ago
    >doesn't using your own UNL basically equate to a hard fork in the event that the nodes don't agree? Short answer: No, if one or a few dont agree they are just ignored. If the majority (>50%) does then it halts and if a quorum is reached (>80%) it could fork. long answer: Its complicated. Under normal conditions nothing happens but in edge cases (large node outages/physical disconnection/like if and undersea cable is cut) it could fragment. This can be avoided if the core of the nodes mostly has each other on the UNL. But since we cant and most importantly should not enforce that its encourages to create and publish an UNL if you think the existing UNLs are not good. Its also encourages to use an UNL with large overlap to other UNLs This leads to the assumption that almost everyone uses one of the published UNLs with minor changes (mostly additions) else if you had mayor changes you would publish an UNL to convince other to also drop/add specific nodes (after all if you have a reason you probably want to tell everyone) Since the UNLs overlap the real nodes UNLs should too and forking is not possible with large overlap. On a high overlap it could only halt if too many nodes are separated/offline which is the wanted behavior rather than making uncertain progress. There is a amendment coming (most likely) for negative UNL where nodes can signal that they lost contact to a node and temporary remove it form the UNL. This would reduce the risk of halting if large percentage of nodes are temporary lost. Instead of 20% it would tolerate more nodes to go offline before the network would halt. It basically adjust the 80% quorum requirement down with every node that goes offline but has a minimum of 60% of the original 100%. 60% is the minimum to prevent forking/fragmenting again. only 51% would be needed if the UNLs would had perfect 100% overlap, so its a bit higher to compensate for the fact that UNLs dont have 100% overlap. https://xrpl.org/negative-unl.html https://xrpl.org/negative-unl.html