How does Ripple solve the double-spend problem?

[xenoky]

There is the same question posted on the bitcoin stack exchange
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7550/how-does-ripple-solve-the-double-spend-problem

The fact is that the Luca Matteis answer that i personally believe more has less point than the one by David Schwartz.

Is David right? Because that's what it seem from that page.
If David is right Bitcoin mining is pure nonsense, otherwise vote the answer of Luca!

[1714326265]

1714326265

[hamiltino]

by being centralized.

[xenoky]

by being centralized.

That's what i hear too.

Reading the answer changed my mind, i think it is decentralized but without proof of work votes for consensus are cheaper resulting in a weaker system

[roslinpl]

a) by being centralized
b) by being centralized
c) by being centralized


as I know..

[Sukrim]

by being centralized.

That's wrong though, centralization is of course a viable method but it is not used in Ripple.

If David is right Bitcoin mining is pure nonsense, otherwise vote the answer of Luca!

Mining is nonsense to prevent double spends if consensus really holds... BUT it also (re-)distributes currency units proportionally by hash rate (with some variance due to the random nature of bitcoin's PoW) to any participant.

Luca Mattheis also is giving a wrong answer there (which is more of a comment to another answer by the way) - while there is a chance to create tons of validators, they (unlike mining nodes) do not automatically have a say in transaction ordering.