Jump to content
Sukrim

validator1.worldlink-us.com makes it to Ripple's recommended validator list

Recommended Posts

https://worldlink-us.com/ripple.html

 

Quote

WorldLink's validator will ensure the validity of transactions on the XRP Ledger and contribute to the robustness and long-term health of the network. The XRP Ledger has expanded to 55 validator nodes within its ecosystem, signaling growing strength and decentralization of its network and further mitigating the risk of a single point of failure. In addition to WorldLink, companies such as Microsoft, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and CGI are also validating transactions on the XRP Ledger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last sentence is unproven or simply a lie, the MIT validator for example is down for years by now and was the only one that was actually claimed by Ripple to be verified.

More problematic is this part of the website you quoted:

Quote

WorldLink is working with Ripple, the global leader in financial settlement solutions, to operate a validator on the open-source XRP Ledger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, yxxyun said:

So, after one year operation, ripple put them to the trusted validators list.

...with no explanation why by the way.

After digging a bit, I think I know the name of the guy that works at/for WorldLink who convinced them to run these validators. Should his name be published instead of the company? At least he doesn't seem to have obvious connections to Ripple (other than getting into the cryptocurrency space a while back and owning some XRP amongst other coins).

Share this post


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

The last sentence is unproven or simply a lie, the MIT validator for example is down for years by now and was the only one that was actually claimed by Ripple to be verified.

More problematic is this part of the website you quoted:

 

I think this specific critique is spot on.

At the same time, it feels to me that this is the approach Ripple will take... And it might be wrong. They are likely going to announce in a similar manner that they've helped company Z run their validator, etc. And this could definitely be perceived wrong and be used to attack the decentralization of the network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, bm32533476 said:

I think this specific critique is spot on.

At the same time, it feels to me that this is the approach Ripple will take... And it might be wrong. They are likely going to announce in a similar manner that they've helped company Z run their validator, etc. And this could definitely be perceived wrong and be used to attack the decentralization of the network.

The universities Ripple donates to shall also be hosting validators. I think as they will be hosted by universities, it would be percieved positively.

Edited by Asen4XRP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It would be great if universities were running validators that aren't paid millions of dollars directly from Ripple... so far there has been only one (MIT) and their validator was shut down years ago. (Edit: And my university a few years back, but we never switched on validation or ran this in any official capacity afair).

Edited by Sukrim

Share this post


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

not this forum post calling it intransparent and ...improvable).

You have now been added to the list of fudsters. You should sell all your xrp now and refrain from harming the joyous image of the great decentralization future the Company brings. /sarcasm, if anything. 

I wonder, why would they run a validator, if they don't use RCL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the fairly recent discovery that it is not as hard as previously thought to get consensus fails is slowing down the decentralisation plan?

That Cobalt is coming,  and that until it is here with a more robust resistance to consensus fails,  Ripple do not want to increase risk of issues hence slowing or being more Ripple-centric in initial decentralisation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I built some code (in nodejs) that decodes the validator list that is published at https://vl.ripple.com. The corresponding domain is looked up via http://data.ripple.com:  

const bs58 = require('ripple-bs58');
const base64 = require('base-64');
const sha256 = require('sha256');
const fetch = require('node-fetch');

function hexToBase58(key) {
  const payload = Buffer.from("1C" + key, 'hex');
  const checksum = Buffer.from(sha256.x2(payload), 'hex').slice(0,4);
  return bs58.encode(Buffer.concat([payload, checksum]));
}

fetch('https://vl.ripple.com').then(res => res.json()).then(body => {
  const validatorList = JSON.parse(base64.decode(body.blob)).validators;
  for (obj of validatorList) {
    const validator = hexToBase58(obj.validation_public_key)
    fetch(`https://data.ripple.com/v2/network/validators/${validator}`).then(res => res.json()).then(body => {
      console.log(`${validator} => ${body.domain}`);
    })
  }
})

Running it will give you currently:

nHUgoJvpqXZMZwxh8ZoFseFJEVF8ryup9r2mFYchX7ftMdNn3jLT => ripple.com
nHBtzeujejMTAWCymPjcaQUjLgxnfxDGTGoZnP3PvHRkR24hVgjw => ripple.com
nHBvriTnYGxP8ix3HfWo2GTFFo2zuxNXyRh3U8F9LvVZd718hhxF => ripple.com
nHB1FqfBpNg7UTpiqEUkKcAiWqC2PFuoGY7FPWtCcXAxSkhpqDkm => ripple.com
nHUpwrafS45zmi6eT72XS5ijpkW5JwfL5mLdPhEibrqUvtRcMAjU => ripple.com
nHUon2tpyJEHHYGmxqeGu37cvPYHzrMtUNQFVdCgGNvEkjmCpTqK => ripple.com
nHBtDzdRDykxiuv7uSMPTcGexNm879RUUz5GW4h1qgjbtyvWZ1LE => ripple.com
nHUzum747yqip3HWSgzSNHNMjmLUqhroNVWidSRTREswEVhKNQEM => ripple.com
nHB29c3ohq7KDtecLSLRrTV9k9Z3rLgmo1v8uuNmEEHxhTqfaQwo => ripple.com
nHULGMbQHyXe92wtnxA1X9TEp26qPiRfwfTv5MskD1yMro7bQ2df => ripple.com
nHUXh1ELizQ5QLLqtNaVEbbbfMdq3wMkh14aJo5xi83xzzaatWWP => ripple.com
nHUBGitjsiaiMJBWKYsJBHU2shmYt9m29hRqoh8AS5bSAjXoHmdd => ripple.com
nHDDasc9BHNB99PW8KUduS8Phqg8NPUmjufzMU6HGGDMUH2xNpPh => ripple.com
nHUUrjuEMtvzzTsiW2xKinUt7Jd83QFqYgfy3Feb7Hq1EJyoxoSz => ripple.com
nHUkp7WhouVMobBUKGrV5FNqjsdD9zKP5jpGnnLLnYxUQSGAwrZ6 => validator1.worldlink-us.com
nHU2Y1mLGDvTbc2dpvpkQ16qdeTKv2aJwGJHFySSB9U3jkTmj4CA => ripple.com
nHUKp8XUkaFN6GzQ3o4qTE1w9aAD5uFjZ8vDt6pwjBsTFRq5FWEb => ripple.com

 

Edited by jn_r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, princesultan said:

Newb question, but why would someone want to run a validator?

https://developers.ripple.com/run-a-rippled-validator.html

I can think of other reasons too, but I don't want to derail the discussion. Feel free to open another thread for that question.

@jn_r - awesome script, thanks! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Tinyaccount said:

Is it possible that the fairly recent discovery that it is not as hard as previously thought to get consensus fails is slowing down the decentralisation plan?

That Cobalt is coming,  and that until it is here with a more robust resistance to consensus fails,  Ripple do not want to increase risk of issues hence slowing or being more Ripple-centric in initial decentralisation?

I don't know if @nikb still hangs around here but he is / was very keen on the decentralisation proces and security  (as also @JoelKatz of course). Maybe they can give us some insights.

I don't know what discovery of consensus fails you mean btw  (but I can have missed it). If you mean the (limited) costs caculation it would take to perform a 51% attack, as far as I know that does not relate to the consensus mechanism but to POW.

Edited by Amigo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×