Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mercury said:

I would like to think having some sort of verification third party like the former IRBA directly involved would give both it and it's partners more credibility, and allow the third party a bigger constructive role

I think that an independent body, that created and published its own standards for validators, functioned as a validator registry and tracked performance, and worked to responsibly post a validator list would be a HUGE benefit to the XRP Ledger ecosystem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mercury said:

Wouldn't having a validator associated with a company, regardless if that company operates the validator directly or via a subsidiary/ contract, still place ultimate responsibility with that company?

I would find it difficult to hold a company accountable for their action and it would also be difficult to actually influence a company's behaviour.

Verification third parties would likely become something similar to CAs and their internal rules would then move to something like a https://cabforum.org for validator registries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 9:45 PM, nikb said:

I think that an independent body, that created and published its own standards for validators, functioned as a validator registry and tracked performance, and worked to responsibly post a validator list would be a HUGE benefit to the XRP Ledger ecosystem.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 6:45 AM, nikb said:

I think that an independent body, that created and published its own standards for validators, functioned as a validator registry and tracked performance, and worked to responsibly post a validator list would be a HUGE benefit to the XRP Ledger ecosystem.

But who would fund such independent body?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T8493 said:

But who would fund such independent body?

 

Charge an application fee that validators that wish to be verified must pay?

Solicit donations from the community?

Those are two options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charge an application fee that validators that wish to be verified must pay?
Solicit donations from the community?
Those are two options.

Or change the core with burned XRP going to that body...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charge an application fee that validators that wish to be verified must pay?

Solicit donations from the community?

Those are two options.

Richest getting verified before the poor?

Donation do not work.... ask wikipedia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or change the core with burned XRP going to that body...

Or double the fee with half burned, half for the supervising body. Having it fee related its in full control of the network/community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kanaas said:

Who says you’ll appointed as the genesis of that body?emoji848.png

Who else would be the appointer? all in all, there are reasons why XRP are destroyed and I don't see any good arguments to change this just because some business models are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sukrim said:

Who else would be the appointer? 

The owner of the public key that is decided by the network/community

19 minutes ago, Sukrim said:

I don't see any good arguments to change this just because some business models are bad.

There seems to be some need for a body under the sole control (funding) of the community. Free gifts do not work, never did for other bodies and never will for this one and it can even create some dependency from a "great donator". When having the funding and (tax)fee relates and with control from the network to what public address those network taxes go one might have best of both: centralised independent managing of validator registry and decentralised control over who gets the funds to take that role...

Edited by kanaas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This creates some not so great incentives or the ones operating that validator registry to stay funded...

Not everything has to be profitable though, but requiring people to validate for free is a different ask of the community than developing and operating (and convince validators to submit data to) validator registries for free. The first only requires a little bit more (cheap) traffic, CPU and a key in a config file, the latter requires code and commitment as well as buy-in from multiple stakeholders and is not something one can do unilaterally in a meaningful way (since companies seem to be averse to publishing ripple.txt files).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukrim said:

This creates some not so great incentives or the ones operating that validator registry to stay funded...

Not everything has to be profitable though, but requiring people to validate for free is a different ask of the community than developing and operating (and convince validators to submit data to) validator registries for free. The first only requires a little bit more (cheap) traffic, CPU and a key in a config file, the latter requires code and commitment as well as buy-in from multiple stakeholders and is not something one can do unilaterally in a meaningful way (since companies seem to be averse to publishing ripple.txt files).

I agree, even none-profits have to be 'profitable'.

I also agree with lack of incentive. A gateway, forum member or service who operates on the communities goodwill and precipitation of trust would have a greater buy in incentive than a bank  or FI who is more insulated from the XRP community. This bigger actors have little to no incentive to get yet another third party, none enforceable regulator, looking over their shoulders- after all they already only trust those they are connected to (via ILP). Unfortunately its the bigger parties and UNL we as a community are most interested in. Ripple could direct these players to the validator registry (especially if its pitched as a security enhancement), but this puts a reliance of what is to be a neutral party on Ripple. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2017 at 6:45 AM, nikb said:

I think that an independent body, that created and published its own standards for validators, functioned as a validator registry and tracked performance, and worked to responsibly post a validator list would be a HUGE benefit to the XRP Ledger ecosystem.

Hey @nikb, thanks for helping out with my Validator. I was reading this thread a little while ago. I develop for other companies too. I do not see a security or even a convenience issue with posting a ripple.txt on a legitimate server. For one it illustrates control over the server by the claiming party. It is not like I was called in to develop a website for a company and then snuck a Rippled on their systems without them knowing about it. At least a ripple.txt is one indicator that this was a desired outcome for the server maintainer and that in the company environment, and they had permission. BUT, as far as I am concerned that is as far as it goes. I do not see any added security especially when the txt is not even required to be on the actual domain. So a security loophole.

I would love to see a multi sig type validation where maybe I signed one third, Ripple signed another third and at least one other validator signed the final third. Personally I would have no problem with that and any of my customers would not even care because I would still handle it for them. So in the event a company wanted me to build a Rippled Validator, they still would be giving permission to operate. You could even tie the rippled instance to a reliance on that key before it could function. That would be even better. It would also weed out these random validators which may or may not be a help to the endeavour in the first place.

Incentive: there is none. I run a validator because I am also building a wallet and use my Rippled to send queries to. Otherwise, why run one? I do see an advantage to smaller private companies running validators along side the big guys as a means of checks and balances against them. The whole reason for crypto in the first place was to get away from the gov. eyes and corporate eyes. Now we are essentially only saying that the Big guys are the only ones that we really trust because of the name? Kinda defeated our own purpose. So someone thinks a Microsoft based validator is more trust worthy then mine for example because it is "Microsoft?" So the bringers of the greatest security threat in the world and the purveyor of every multinational virus and malware is more trustworthy than .....? I would say their Rippled server is no more trustworthy than mine or anyone else's.

Point: I see no harm in requiring a level of validity for a server. I certainly would go along with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...