There was a time when Ripple was riding the coattails of bitcoin. Then now that Dash is having all the attention because of the price going up it would be expected for a Ripple employee to ride it again.
I do not doubt your ability but let me ask you, what does Ripple intend to do with the billions of XRP squirreled in your wallets?
Topic: Dash: masternode the same as Ripple validator? (Read 944 times)
The day Ripple realizes that Dash is just Ripple-Lite.
My quote of the day "The day Ripple realizes that Dash is just Ripple-Lite. "
The day Ripple realizes that Dash is just Ripple-Lite.
Ripple replaces mining with a system of "validators." These special nodes use consensus to agree in which transactions to include in the next ledger. Their decisions are broadcast through the network as messages signed with their public key. Each node (computer running the rippled software) in the RCL network is responsible for deciding its "UNL" (which stands for Unique Node List). This list controls which validators the node cares about.
For everyone on the network to agree on the same ledger chain, there are various rules about how the UNL should be formed. Specifically that there should be a minimum amount of overlap of people's UNLs. We won't get into that here.
The most important factor in choosing this UNL, is to make sure that you pick validators which are not colluding. There is a set of rules and best practices for validators to enforce this. The most important is that validators must be publicly identified. For example, if hypothetically Microsoft is running a validator then it should publish its public key in a way that certifies Microsoft is under control of the validator. An easy way to do this is to put a text file with the public key at the company's domain, reachable via HTTPS with a known certificate. For example at https://microsoft.com/ripple.txt
Now I am looking at this masternode system of Dash and it seems to be that its essentially the same as Ripple validators (with minor technical differences). But in Dash, the masternodes identity is secret. This is exactly the scenario that Ripple describes as insecure!
Am I missing something here?
For everyone on the network to agree on the same ledger chain, there are various rules about how the UNL should be formed. Specifically that there should be a minimum amount of overlap of people's UNLs. We won't get into that here.
The most important factor in choosing this UNL, is to make sure that you pick validators which are not colluding. There is a set of rules and best practices for validators to enforce this. The most important is that validators must be publicly identified. For example, if hypothetically Microsoft is running a validator then it should publish its public key in a way that certifies Microsoft is under control of the validator. An easy way to do this is to put a text file with the public key at the company's domain, reachable via HTTPS with a known certificate. For example at https://microsoft.com/ripple.txt
Now I am looking at this masternode system of Dash and it seems to be that its essentially the same as Ripple validators (with minor technical differences). But in Dash, the masternodes identity is secret. This is exactly the scenario that Ripple describes as insecure!
Am I missing something here?
No, you're not missing anything afaik, the Dash masternode setup is a house of cards built on shifting sands, enough to make Dash a no-go investment, more so than dubious instamine and likely illegal securities issue SEC prosecutions even. Makes The DAO look good. When Dash falls over the aftermath will be good for crypto though, will reveal to all what are fundamentals of good crypto finance platforms, all Dash has done is extend marketing, nothing more.
Ripple replaces mining with a system of "validators." These special nodes use consensus to agree in which transactions to include in the next ledger. Their decisions are broadcast through the network as messages signed with their public key. Each node (computer running the rippled software) in the RCL network is responsible for deciding its "UNL" (which stands for Unique Node List). This list controls which validators the node cares about.
For everyone on the network to agree on the same ledger chain, there are various rules about how the UNL should be formed. Specifically that there should be a minimum amount of overlap of people's UNLs. We won't get into that here.
The most important factor in choosing this UNL, is to make sure that you pick validators which are not colluding. There is a set of rules and best practices for validators to enforce this. The most important is that validators must be publicly identified. For example, if hypothetically Microsoft is running a validator then it should publish its public key in a way that certifies Microsoft is under control of the validator. An easy way to do this is to put a text file with the public key at the company's domain, reachable via HTTPS with a known certificate. For example at https://microsoft.com/ripple.txt
Now I am looking at this masternode system of Dash and it seems to be that its essentially the same as Ripple validators (with minor technical differences). But in Dash, the masternodes identity is secret. This is exactly the scenario that Ripple describes as insecure!
Am I missing something here?
For everyone on the network to agree on the same ledger chain, there are various rules about how the UNL should be formed. Specifically that there should be a minimum amount of overlap of people's UNLs. We won't get into that here.
The most important factor in choosing this UNL, is to make sure that you pick validators which are not colluding. There is a set of rules and best practices for validators to enforce this. The most important is that validators must be publicly identified. For example, if hypothetically Microsoft is running a validator then it should publish its public key in a way that certifies Microsoft is under control of the validator. An easy way to do this is to put a text file with the public key at the company's domain, reachable via HTTPS with a known certificate. For example at https://microsoft.com/ripple.txt
Now I am looking at this masternode system of Dash and it seems to be that its essentially the same as Ripple validators (with minor technical differences). But in Dash, the masternodes identity is secret. This is exactly the scenario that Ripple describes as insecure!
Am I missing something here?
Jump to: