Topic: Stellar - page 41. (Read 521248 times)
So their connectivity problems are from that one node? lol
Is SCP implemented yet?
nope not officially anyway...
Is SCP implemented yet?
It's quiet around here... Any updates?
still trying to implement their new protocol and from what i can gather they are having problems with it...*yawn*
Stellar @StellarOrg · May 20
We're experiencing an increased number of connectivity issues & failed requests, and are actively working on a fix. https://stellarorg.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204468919-Connectivity-issues-and-failed-requests …
It's quiet around here... Any updates?
Are Stellar invites still worth anything?
I have one sitting in my account.
i don't know if we can get str off invite code now, if we can get str from invite code on other account then yes they're worth some str/btc. I have one sitting in my account.
Are Stellar invites still worth anything?
I have one sitting in my account.
I have one sitting in my account.
dunno...I have two as well
Are Stellar invites still worth anything?
I have one sitting in my account.
I have one sitting in my account.
what is the current value of stellars in bitcoins or dollors I have some stellars. Will the value of stellar increase in future?
You can check here: http://www.stellarvalue.org/
Currently, 5000 STR = 13.69908 USD = 0.05925 BTC.
what is the current value of stellars in bitcoins or dollors I have some stellars. Will the value of stellar increase in future?
how much stellar you have man?
what is the current value of stellars in bitcoins or dollors I have some stellars. Will the value of stellar increase in future?
You guys got some buzz today on cryptsy chat...I'm goin to look into your project!
care to elaborate?
They're probably going to have an STR/BTC market.
You guys got some buzz today on cryptsy chat...I'm goin to look into your project!
care to elaborate?
You guys got some buzz today on cryptsy chat...I'm goin to look into your project!
"It isn't clear to me why the authors believe that the system is fit for cryptocurrency use when it cannot guarantee eventual agreement about _all_ of the state."
You are trapped in a room, you have two choices:1) You can keep flipping a coin until it comes up heads. When it comes up heads, you can leave.
2) You can flip 100 coins at once until they all come up heads. You can leave when all 100 coins come up heads at once or in two weeks.
Which would you prefer? Option 2 can guarantee you will eventually leave. Option 1 cannot. So option 2 must be better, right?
Blockchains can't guarantee that anyone will ever find a block. Is that a problem? No.
What you can guarantee is interesting from a theoretical standpoint. But what really matters for practical purposes is what actually happens.
Note: I edited this post to add the word "No" after "Is that a problem?" for clarity. My point, of course, is that it's not a problem at all.
It's the same security model that Ripple was initially advertised to have, but which didn't actually work in practice. The mechanism and conditions appear to be slightly different, and the requirements actually (somewhat) defined, but the fundamental concern remains.
I pointed out back in 2013 that the result of the OpenCoin Ripple model would either result in centralization or a total failure of consensus; and pushed them to formalize their requirements and to specify a procedure that might actually cause them to be met. They didn't. When Ripple was deployed the outcome was centralization, and when they repeated the experiment with Stellar the system spontaneously failed.
Just as with ripple back in 2013 the new Stellar proposal is unable to answer the basic questions about how we can know or guarantee anything about the security of the system. Mazieres and Vitalik describe it as leaving it up to the market and think it will work out. I think it would better be described as leaving security up to chance. And the chances don't look good: leaving it up to the users to ensure a safe and decentralized topology has already failed in practice with a highly similar system _twice_.
I pay attention to these things because I hope to see useful things invented and deployed (for their own sake, and so I can use them in my own project); I also pay attention because I'm concerned about blow-back. _Currently_ people are free to do what they want, here there is tremendous information asymmetry and a host of incentives which are at odds with the public interest (including the fact that the few people like me who can clearly see the problems, have every incentive to say nothing at all; much less enough to be anything but a reed in the wind against a massively funded PR effort); and these efforts raise problems across several domains of law. The result may well be some crazy efforts to regulate the space as a result, which would harm everyone.
I pointed out back in 2013 that the result of the OpenCoin Ripple model would either result in centralization or a total failure of consensus; and pushed them to formalize their requirements and to specify a procedure that might actually cause them to be met. They didn't. When Ripple was deployed the outcome was centralization, and when they repeated the experiment with Stellar the system spontaneously failed.
Just as with ripple back in 2013 the new Stellar proposal is unable to answer the basic questions about how we can know or guarantee anything about the security of the system. Mazieres and Vitalik describe it as leaving it up to the market and think it will work out. I think it would better be described as leaving security up to chance. And the chances don't look good: leaving it up to the users to ensure a safe and decentralized topology has already failed in practice with a highly similar system _twice_.
I pay attention to these things because I hope to see useful things invented and deployed (for their own sake, and so I can use them in my own project); I also pay attention because I'm concerned about blow-back. _Currently_ people are free to do what they want, here there is tremendous information asymmetry and a host of incentives which are at odds with the public interest (including the fact that the few people like me who can clearly see the problems, have every incentive to say nothing at all; much less enough to be anything but a reed in the wind against a massively funded PR effort); and these efforts raise problems across several domains of law. The result may well be some crazy efforts to regulate the space as a result, which would harm everyone.
I've been watching and waiting. nullc seems to = gmaxwell:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9342348
Time to move on.
TLDR version? Too technical for me wee brain.
"It isn't clear to me why the authors believe that the system is fit for cryptocurrency use when it cannot guarantee eventual agreement about _all_ of the state."
It's the same security model that Ripple was initially advertised to have, but which didn't actually work in practice. The mechanism and conditions appear to be slightly different, and the requirements actually (somewhat) defined, but the fundamental concern remains.
I pointed out back in 2013 that the result of the OpenCoin Ripple model would either result in centralization or a total failure of consensus; and pushed them to formalize their requirements and to specify a procedure that might actually cause them to be met. They didn't. When Ripple was deployed the outcome was centralization, and when they repeated the experiment with Stellar the system spontaneously failed.
Just as with ripple back in 2013 the new Stellar proposal is unable to answer the basic questions about how we can know or guarantee anything about the security of the system. Mazieres and Vitalik describe it as leaving it up to the market and think it will work out. I think it would better be described as leaving security up to chance. And the chances don't look good: leaving it up to the users to ensure a safe and decentralized topology has already failed in practice with a highly similar system _twice_.
I pay attention to these things because I hope to see useful things invented and deployed (for their own sake, and so I can use them in my own project); I also pay attention because I'm concerned about blow-back. _Currently_ people are free to do what they want, here there is tremendous information asymmetry and a host of incentives which are at odds with the public interest (including the fact that the few people like me who can clearly see the problems, have every incentive to say nothing at all; much less enough to be anything but a reed in the wind against a massively funded PR effort); and these efforts raise problems across several domains of law. The result may well be some crazy efforts to regulate the space as a result, which would harm everyone.
I pointed out back in 2013 that the result of the OpenCoin Ripple model would either result in centralization or a total failure of consensus; and pushed them to formalize their requirements and to specify a procedure that might actually cause them to be met. They didn't. When Ripple was deployed the outcome was centralization, and when they repeated the experiment with Stellar the system spontaneously failed.
Just as with ripple back in 2013 the new Stellar proposal is unable to answer the basic questions about how we can know or guarantee anything about the security of the system. Mazieres and Vitalik describe it as leaving it up to the market and think it will work out. I think it would better be described as leaving security up to chance. And the chances don't look good: leaving it up to the users to ensure a safe and decentralized topology has already failed in practice with a highly similar system _twice_.
I pay attention to these things because I hope to see useful things invented and deployed (for their own sake, and so I can use them in my own project); I also pay attention because I'm concerned about blow-back. _Currently_ people are free to do what they want, here there is tremendous information asymmetry and a host of incentives which are at odds with the public interest (including the fact that the few people like me who can clearly see the problems, have every incentive to say nothing at all; much less enough to be anything but a reed in the wind against a massively funded PR effort); and these efforts raise problems across several domains of law. The result may well be some crazy efforts to regulate the space as a result, which would harm everyone.
I've been watching and waiting. nullc seems to = gmaxwell:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9342348
Time to move on.
TLDR version? Too technical for me wee brain.
It's the same security model that Ripple was initially advertised to have, but which didn't actually work in practice. The mechanism and conditions appear to be slightly different, and the requirements actually (somewhat) defined, but the fundamental concern remains.
I pointed out back in 2013 that the result of the OpenCoin Ripple model would either result in centralization or a total failure of consensus; and pushed them to formalize their requirements and to specify a procedure that might actually cause them to be met. They didn't. When Ripple was deployed the outcome was centralization, and when they repeated the experiment with Stellar the system spontaneously failed.
Just as with ripple back in 2013 the new Stellar proposal is unable to answer the basic questions about how we can know or guarantee anything about the security of the system. Mazieres and Vitalik describe it as leaving it up to the market and think it will work out. I think it would better be described as leaving security up to chance. And the chances don't look good: leaving it up to the users to ensure a safe and decentralized topology has already failed in practice with a highly similar system _twice_.
I pay attention to these things because I hope to see useful things invented and deployed (for their own sake, and so I can use them in my own project); I also pay attention because I'm concerned about blow-back. _Currently_ people are free to do what they want, here there is tremendous information asymmetry and a host of incentives which are at odds with the public interest (including the fact that the few people like me who can clearly see the problems, have every incentive to say nothing at all; much less enough to be anything but a reed in the wind against a massively funded PR effort); and these efforts raise problems across several domains of law. The result may well be some crazy efforts to regulate the space as a result, which would harm everyone.
I pointed out back in 2013 that the result of the OpenCoin Ripple model would either result in centralization or a total failure of consensus; and pushed them to formalize their requirements and to specify a procedure that might actually cause them to be met. They didn't. When Ripple was deployed the outcome was centralization, and when they repeated the experiment with Stellar the system spontaneously failed.
Just as with ripple back in 2013 the new Stellar proposal is unable to answer the basic questions about how we can know or guarantee anything about the security of the system. Mazieres and Vitalik describe it as leaving it up to the market and think it will work out. I think it would better be described as leaving security up to chance. And the chances don't look good: leaving it up to the users to ensure a safe and decentralized topology has already failed in practice with a highly similar system _twice_.
I pay attention to these things because I hope to see useful things invented and deployed (for their own sake, and so I can use them in my own project); I also pay attention because I'm concerned about blow-back. _Currently_ people are free to do what they want, here there is tremendous information asymmetry and a host of incentives which are at odds with the public interest (including the fact that the few people like me who can clearly see the problems, have every incentive to say nothing at all; much less enough to be anything but a reed in the wind against a massively funded PR effort); and these efforts raise problems across several domains of law. The result may well be some crazy efforts to regulate the space as a result, which would harm everyone.
I've been watching and waiting. nullc seems to = gmaxwell:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9342348
Time to move on.
Agree wholeheartedly. They are good at UI gloss, but under the hood lies a Frankenstein codebase. They are also lagging hugely when it comes to leading, innovating, networking and doing deals with the big fish. But yes, the track record of these guys doesn't give me any confidence.
Stellar Development Foundation crew seem to be bunch of screw ups, who blame others for their own mistakes. Just look at their previous ripple consensus algorithm. SDF modifies it, the modification causes a network fork, then they blame RL for creating an unsafe consensus algo.
I have hard time trusting anything SDF says. Track record speaks louder than a thousand words.
This Stellartalk-discussion shows why SDF isn't really the most trustworthy crew around. Read the whole thread.
I have hard time trusting anything SDF says. Track record speaks louder than a thousand words.
This Stellartalk-discussion shows why SDF isn't really the most trustworthy crew around. Read the whole thread.
Jump to: