3 ms·

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your objection, but you can actually run your own stellard, which is a first-class member of the network: https://github.com/stellar/

by gdb 12y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your objection, but you can actually run your own stellard, which is a first-class member of the network: https://github.com/stellar/stellard https://github.com/stellar/stellard. The Foundation runs a public stellard for convenience, but you're under no obligation to use it. The client and wallet powering launch.stellar.org are similarly open-source, and can be hooked up to your local stellard.

wyager 12y ago
Stellar is a fork of Ripple. It is not a decentralized system, in the sense that, if you want to use any given currency (such as stellars), you must trust a number of centralized, trusted nodes. This is Ripple's/Stellar's "solution" to the double-spend problem.
- gdb 12y ago
  Here's a related (though not completely equivalent) thread on Reddit that I think does a good job of framing this topic: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2c910w/stripe_gets_more_involved_in_cryptocurrencies/cjdcv9e http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2c910w/stripe_gets_....
  - wyager 12y ago
    Specifically, "Apart from that, block signers synchronize through the Consensus algorithm which is a semi-trusted model." Emphasis on "semi-trusted", i.e. "not worth shit from a decentralization standpoint".
  - makomk 12y ago
    That thread understates just how centralized the consensus system is. If your node isn't on the trust list of the official Stellar Foundation nodes, they do not participate in the consensus-building process of those nodes and cannot affect their consensus. Those official nodes have the ability to freeze accounts, change the fees charged, and probably to issue new money arbitrarily if they collude. Now, technically your node can have a different trust list and come to a different consensus. You don't want to do that, though, because then you're stuck on a different version of the transaction history from the one everyone else accepts and any money you receive is likely worthless because it's not recognised by the rest of the network.
- sylvinus 12y ago
  How is that worse than trusting that the top 2 BTC mining pools aren't colliding? I'll take a semi-centralized system with respected public figures as advisors over a theoretically decentralized system that is actually ran by a few anonymous miners.

by gdb 12y ago

wyager 12y ago

Stellar is a fork of Ripple. It is not a decentralized system, in the sense that, if you want to use any given currency (such as stellars), you must trust a number of centralized, trusted nodes. This is Ripple's/Stellar's "solution" to the double-spend problem.

gdb 12y ago
Here's a related (though not completely equivalent) thread on Reddit that I think does a good job of framing this topic: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2c910w/stripe_gets_more_involved_in_cryptocurrencies/cjdcv9e http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2c910w/stripe_gets_....
- wyager 12y ago
  Specifically, "Apart from that, block signers synchronize through the Consensus algorithm which is a semi-trusted model." Emphasis on "semi-trusted", i.e. "not worth shit from a decentralization standpoint".
- makomk 12y ago
  That thread understates just how centralized the consensus system is. If your node isn't on the trust list of the official Stellar Foundation nodes, they do not participate in the consensus-building process of those nodes and cannot affect their consensus. Those official nodes have the ability to freeze accounts, change the fees charged, and probably to issue new money arbitrarily if they collude. Now, technically your node can have a different trust list and come to a different consensus. You don't want to do that, though, because then you're stuck on a different version of the transaction history from the one everyone else accepts and any money you receive is likely worthless because it's not recognised by the rest of the network.
sylvinus 12y ago
How is that worse than trusting that the top 2 BTC mining pools aren't colliding? I'll take a semi-centralized system with respected public figures as advisors over a theoretically decentralized system that is actually ran by a few anonymous miners.