Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About karstnDE

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You need to convince other validators that your ledger proposal is the right one. But only a ledger proposal that the supermajority of validators agree on will be chosen. If you propose just anything - e.g. with another "last closed ledger" - to the network the other validators will ignore you, as all validators know which ledger has been closed last (not your fake one!). That's why it is called Consensus Protocol and not Proof of Work. You could say in Proof of Work you basically work against each other, in Consensus you work together. For a detailed read-up I'd suggest you read this here: https://xrpl.org/consensus-principles-and-rules.html - it's a brilliantly thought-out concept and worthwhile to dig in to.
  2. My argumentation would go like this: Secure reference = The reference cannot be changed = Immutability of "closed" blocks/ledgers required, because they contain the hash to the prior ledger/ block Closed XRP ledgers cannot be changed, so the chain of ledgers cannot be changed with the XRPL - other than in PoW chains where in theory a longer chain could come up and alter the last blocks. It is not hard to create and check the secure reference with the XRPL - but for a reference to be secure it doesn't need to be hard to create it. Thats a misconception that comes with proof of work, I'd say.
  3. Thanks for your help! I found the error after your assurance that I'm on the right track. ;-) I'll think about putting a string converter between all the different encodings and key types online as I didn't find a good one online for the XRPL case - esp. as you need to use the Ripple alphabet for the base58 encodings. Something like that would have helped me a lot to understand the details.
  4. Hi all, I'm trying to understand the heart of the XRPL, the consensus algorithm. I started with digging through some verbose ("trace"-level) logs to better understand what happens during the 3-4 seconds ledger close time. Simply put in beginning we receive peer proposals for transaction sets, build our own set and the voting/ proposal adaption rounds begin, etc. During that process a 40-character hash is used to identify a peer (validator) that is for example proposing transaction sets. Example: 2019-Jun-24 09:24:28.602014450 LedgerConsensus:DBG Peer EAA736D07879B900E2CF0297F882FF8D13045C21 votes NO on 3EFFE2928F57AC0A5CC65E3C0E9A44A738D78D2DA41C6CA033B85DE516ACD6E5 The same identifier can be found in the response of the consensus_info command. The identifier is used as key in the peer_positions object (see below/attached). As you can see from the consensus_info outcome, the identifier belongs to "n9KGP..." which then seems to belong to rabbitkick.club. I'm trying to understand for quite some time how this 40-character/160-bit hash is built. I kept digging through the rippled code but my understanding is not deep enough. It seems to be called "nodeID" in the code and might be a RIPEMD160(SHA256) hash, but I couldn't reproduce the outcome. Anyone? Thanks
  5. Do you only read the replies you get word by word or do you try to understand them?
  6. It’s just the complaining without being able to provide a better solution (that works in the long run) that drives me crazy.
  7. a) I highly doubt using an internally calculated number increases acceptance on the issue. You can argue against any number/ volume calculation as there is no objective “right” number b) If it’s about the programmatic sales in general that ****es you off you should think about investing in PoW coins
  8. a) Which number do you propose to use? CMC is the most known and used indicator. b) Volume is created by buying and selling, so "someone buys in and they cash out" is plain wrong
  9. You sound very frustrated for no obvious reason. Adoption is happening as we speak. Take some days off without a screen.
  10. I don't know if hopium really helps people in not getting overinvested. Both overinvesting and unrealistic hope should have no place in any investors mental toolkit. Purely rational thinking should be.
  11. For sure the blog episode is controversial, but those complaining about it by saying “everyone should accept other people’s views” should re-read the following part of the blog:
  12. Miguel left Ripple and Ripple partnered with Standard Chartered and Alipay
  13. It's more the other way around, if XRP succeeds so does Ripple. Ripple succeeding does not necessarily mean XRP succeeding. They use their stack of XRP, not XRP as an asset itself, to expand and promote their business. But in the end it for sure is a very nitty gritty way of arguing so your train of thoughts is nevertheless somewhat reasonable.
  14. I took the summary and highlighted the wrong (or at least could be argued to be wrong) statements in red. The confusion between Ripple and XRP is astonishing.
  • Create New...