First provably safe federated Byzantine agreement protocol

[nakaone]

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-

#

normally here are tons of fanboys of stellar - maybe they can explain

[Ix]

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.

[Daedelus]

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?)

[1ofthemany]

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.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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.

[1ofthemany]

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.

[Tobo]

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.  

[patmast3r]

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.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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.

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?

[Daedelus]

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.

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?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Would picking validators be left up to the user or form part of the protocol?

The former.

[Sukrim]

The code and whitepaper have finally been released now by the way: https://www.stellar.org/blog/stellar-consensus-protocol-proof-code/

[patmast3r]

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 !