Jump to content

Validating a validator...


Recommended Posts

I am wondering at ways someone could authenticate a validator. I believe Ripple is publicly only suggesting domain linking (https://ripple.com/build/rippled-setup/#domain-verification)(https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScszfq7rRLAfArSZtvitCyl-VFA9cNcdnXLFjURsdCQ3gHW7w/viewform) and doing more intensive scrutiny of partners to be added to the Trust List.

Besides logistic (location, type, server info) and statistical performance (uptime, agreement rate, etc.) should there be a third party (or several) that could help build a white list for trusted validators by offering KYC, background, etc.

Something like Ripple's list (https://xrpcharts.ripple.com/#/validators) but perhaps some sort of managed list that is constantly updated, verified and pushed out to members?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am wondering at ways someone could authenticate a validator. I believe Ripple is publicly only suggesting domain linking (https://ripple.com/build/rippled-setup/#domain-verification)(https://docs.go

I want to eventually provide something of this manner, it's all voluntary though of course.

Stand by Jon ?

3 hours ago, JonHolmquist said:

I want to eventually provide something of this manner, it's all voluntary though of course.

How would it work?

I think some sort of KYC clearing house that would multi sign a validator would be the easiest way to go followed by some sort of receptacle auto verified list

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 4:21 PM, JonHolmquist said:

I want to eventually provide something of this manner, it's all voluntary though of course.

@Mercury I was going to post that Jon put something out a while ago about the people behind the validators.

It would be good to have an alternative to authenticating validators beyond domains. I think we end up back where we are with one (central) party aka Ripple determining who is who, and who is to say that party can be trusted?

Edited by XRPinformation
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd prefer a more factual description of validators and the operators behind them so people can choose their own UNLs instead of operating a validator registry that only serves a single file in the format that rippled expects.

It might be possible though to host several such lists and provide an easy interface for people to pic and choose, maybe even vote (in case a group operates a validator).

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

Yeah, I'd prefer a more factual description of validators and the operators behind them so people can choose their own UNLs instead of operating a validator registry that only serves a single file in the format that rippled expects.

It might be possible though to host several such lists and provide an easy interface for people to pic and choose, maybe even vote (in case a group operates a validator).

I would like several UNLs based on various factors. Say geopolitical, or author type (school, gateways, etc). 

I am also a huge fan of the group operated validators idea. Not sure how it would work exactly. I was thinking it could be done two ways. Some sort of prefab hardware that could pointed and linked to a cluster (as outlined to Rippled setup), giving the owner a vote and helping with uptime... A decentralized validator if you will. The other option is more straight forward, just a single operator that allows a open member group voting. 

The decentralized validator may be less efficient but more attractive from a modders community perspective. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think a group validator might be more 'trusted' as getting a whole group to vote self harm to network is tougher than a single actor. Having several group validators in a UNL would in my opinion be as trustful as carefully vetted group of five single actors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 5:22 PM, Mercury said:

How would it work?

I think some sort of KYC clearing house that would multi sign a validator would be the easiest way to go followed by some sort of receptacle auto verified list

Through the validator list feature which is new and exciting. 

I'd definitely publish my research into the validators I'd include though, but at this stage it would only be a replication of the Ripple list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JonHolmquist said:

Through the validator list feature which is new and exciting. 

I'd definitely publish my research into the validators I'd include though, but at this stage it would only be a replication of the Ripple list.

I would need to read up some more on the feature

Do you have a ETA for the publication of your work- I don't want to miss it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.