The code and whitepaper have finally been released now by the way: https://www.stellar.org/blog/stellar-consensus-protocol-proof-code/
Thanks for posting it !
Topic: First provably safe federated Byzantine agreement protocol (Read 2779 times)
Thanks for posting it !
The code and whitepaper have finally been released now by the way: https://www.stellar.org/blog/stellar-consensus-protocol-proof-code/
Would picking validators be left up to the user or form part of the protocol?
The former.
Does it differ from the Ripple protocoll now ?
What always put me off about the Ripple protocoll is that validators have to trust each other and that those trust-lines have to be set manually.
Not only do validators need to trust each other, users also have to set trustlines to actually start using Ripple.
I mean sure that'll most likely make the network very secure since noone can just come an spread false data but it just doesn't right. It's not really decentralized either.
What always put me off about the Ripple protocoll is that validators have to trust each other and that those trust-lines have to be set manually.
Not only do validators need to trust each other, users also have to set trustlines to actually start using Ripple.
I mean sure that'll most likely make the network very secure since noone can just come an spread false data but it just doesn't right. It's not really decentralized either.
It still looks decentralized if you managed to pick validators that won't collude.
It's more secure because in Bitcoin a successful attack will invalidate some transactions, in Ripple/Stellar the attack will only break consensus putting the network on hold. What would you prefer - to see your money goes to another wallet or to see that system stops working?
Would picking validators be left up to the user or form part of the protocol?
Does it differ from the Ripple protocoll now ?
What always put me off about the Ripple protocoll is that validators have to trust each other and that those trust-lines have to be set manually.
Not only do validators need to trust each other, users also have to set trustlines to actually start using Ripple.
I mean sure that'll most likely make the network very secure since noone can just come an spread false data but it just doesn't right. It's not really decentralized either.
What always put me off about the Ripple protocoll is that validators have to trust each other and that those trust-lines have to be set manually.
Not only do validators need to trust each other, users also have to set trustlines to actually start using Ripple.
I mean sure that'll most likely make the network very secure since noone can just come an spread false data but it just doesn't right. It's not really decentralized either.
It still looks decentralized if you managed to pick validators that won't collude.
It's more secure because in Bitcoin a successful attack will invalidate some transactions, in Ripple/Stellar the attack will only break consensus putting the network on hold. What would you prefer - to see your money goes to another wallet or to see that system stops working?
Does it differ from the Ripple protocoll now ?
What always put me off about the Ripple protocoll is that validators have to trust each other and that those trust-lines have to be set manually.
Not only do validators need to trust each other, users also have to set trustlines to actually start using Ripple.
I mean sure that'll most likely make the network very secure since noone can just come an spread false data but it just doesn't right. It's not really decentralized either.
What always put me off about the Ripple protocoll is that validators have to trust each other and that those trust-lines have to be set manually.
Not only do validators need to trust each other, users also have to set trustlines to actually start using Ripple.
I mean sure that'll most likely make the network very secure since noone can just come an spread false data but it just doesn't right. It's not really decentralized either.
According to your definition Bitcoin is not decentralized, it's distributed. There are nodes that mine bitcoins and nodes that don't. The former can decide if one particular transaction can be included into the next block while the latter can't.
It is probably true that there is at this moment some level centralization for every crypto-coin to achieve the necessary security due to the limitation of the current technology. I guess that the difference is that some have higher level centralization than he others, and some cryptos prototype their centralization in the beginning and the some other cryptos form their centralization during the developing of their ecosystem after the launch. I guess that eventually the winners will be whoever are more efficient.
Folks at stellar love to say lots of shit without backing them up with facts. Where's the white paper? They're just trying to create buzz for their dying currency.
I've checked marketcap dynamics of Stellar and Bitcoin, the former is more alive.
lol it definitely isn't more alive than bitcoin. stellar markets are as illiquid as they get.
Folks at stellar love to say lots of shit without backing them up with facts. Where's the white paper? They're just trying to create buzz for their dying currency.
I've checked marketcap dynamics of Stellar and Bitcoin, the former is more alive.
Folks at stellar love to say lots of shit without backing them up with facts. Where's the white paper? They're just trying to create buzz for their dying currency.
So the users choose who to trust. It's not centralization and it isn't resource testing, so I guess that is why you are interested. Does this open up a sybil attack angle?
I set up 1000 nodes, trade between myself, maybe even run a business. Other users look to my nodes for what is the 'right' chain. I do that for a while (12 months?) and then turn bad and double spend.
I guess you could wait until a large enough economy has built up where there are many large public bodies operating to mitigate this.
(Is this really about Economic Clustering?)
I set up 1000 nodes, trade between myself, maybe even run a business. Other users look to my nodes for what is the 'right' chain. I do that for a while (12 months?) and then turn bad and double spend.
I guess you could wait until a large enough economy has built up where there are many large public bodies operating to mitigate this.
(Is this really about Economic Clustering?)
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
Well... I'm sure they twiddled a few bits here and there, and I guess they spent the effort to prove that Stellar's federated byzantine agreement protocol is safe, first.
What did they change about Ripple that makes this one provably safe but Ripple not provably safe?
That is, what is the added safety feature that makes it safer than Ripple?
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
-MarkM-
That is, what is the added safety feature that makes it safer than Ripple?
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
-MarkM-
#
normally here are tons of fanboys of stellar - maybe they can explain
What did they change about Ripple that makes this one provably safe but Ripple not provably safe?
That is, what is the added safety feature that makes it safer than Ripple?
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
-MarkM-
That is, what is the added safety feature that makes it safer than Ripple?
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
-MarkM-
I don't know the details. But I liked how they striked Bitcoin back by claiming that they are more decentralized than Bitcoin because in Bitcoin we can't choose who the validators are. An average bitcoiners actually has no a choice at all, he was just lucky when Deepbit and GHash.IO didn't abuse their power when they were controlling 51% of it.
I noticed that the thread was moved to Altcoins. Not surprising, the moderators always do their best to keep critics of Bitcoin away of the main page...
What did they change about Ripple that makes this one provably safe but Ripple not provably safe?
That is, what is the added safety feature that makes it safer than Ripple?
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
-MarkM-
That is, what is the added safety feature that makes it safer than Ripple?
Or are they really saying that Ripple's protocol is provably safe so theirs also is?
-MarkM-
In a decentralized p2p network, every node is equal in term of right and authorization and no node is superior to other nodes. In a distributed network, some nodes are special and have more right and authorization than other nodes.
According to your definition Bitcoin is not decentralized, it's distributed. There are nodes that mine bitcoins and nodes that don't. The former can decide if one particular transaction can be included into the next block while the latter can't.
Is Stellar using a decentralized consensus mechanism? What I heard is that Stellar is distributed but decentralized.
Tell me the definition of "decentralized" and I'll answer your question. Different people have different meaning of "decentralized" and quite often confuse it with "distributed".In a decentralized p2p network, every node is equal in term of right and authorization and no node is superior to other nodes. In a distributed network, some nodes are special and have more right and authorization than other nodes.
There was a fork about half a year ago and the devs denied anyone else the opportunity to run a node to deal with it. Although I don't know what happened afterwards it was a centralized network for a while.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113073/stellar-switches-to-centralized-system-after-node-issue-causes-accidental-fork
Is Stellar using a decentralized consensus mechanism? What I heard is that Stellar is distributed but decentralized.
Tell me the definition of "decentralized" and I'll answer your question. Different people have different meaning of "decentralized" and quite often confuse it with "distributed".In a decentralized p2p network, every node is equal in term of right and authorization and no node is superior to other nodes. In a distributed network, some nodes are special and have more right and authorization than other nodes.
It doesn't belong to Altcoins subforum. They say that Bitcoin security is weak because it's unknown who miners and what their intents are.
Why would this surprise you? Researchers that are influenced by the government say that Bitcoin security is weak. We lose quite a nice amount of decentralization if we knew who mines and why.No, I don't think that this should be in the altcoin section either. Obviously it's a subtle attempt at undermining the security of Bitcoin.
Jump to: