Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hallwaymonitor

XRPL Decentralization Update

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, princesultan said:

This is good news. If I play devils advocate though, the fact that ripple chooses these validations, can’t one argue that’s a centralized way of doing so?

You need to remember that this is just Ripple's UNL and while it is the one and only at the moment there is nothing stopping any other entity creating their own list of trusted validators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Trickery said:

You need to remember that this is just Ripple's UNL and while it is the one and only at the moment there is nothing stopping any other entity creating their own list of trusted validators.

Well, the fact that this could put everyone at risk of having their node come to a stop that uses a less-overlapping validator list is a big detractor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nikb said:

Maybe you disagree with the decision to add them. That’s fine.

I don't even disagree, I am just wondering what the standards for inclusion and exclusion for Ripple's recommended UNL are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @karlos and @fidgetspinner for being stalwart supporters and active in the XRP community.  Running validators is important and necessary work, and those of us who use the XRPLedger to transfer value owe you a debt of gratitude.

Awesome that you are on the UNL and long may you reign.  :) 

Also thanks to @nikb for being helpful and informative to us all here,  and most of all for doing the actual work that is building out this wonderful technology.  I feel like I'm witnessing an important part of world affairs unfold in front of me.  Thanks guys for sharing as you do,  and for letting us come along for the ride.   :JC_doubleup:

Share this post


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

I don't even disagree, I am just wondering what the standards for inclusion and exclusion for Ripple's recommended UNL are.

Based on how decisions were done in the past, my guess is: There are no standards, but rather criterias that are judge on individual basis.

Its not necessary good or bad, time is judge.

 

Share this post


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

You need to remember that this is just Ripple's UNL and while it is the one and only at the moment there is nothing stopping any other entity creating their own list of trusted validators.

 

1 hour ago, Sukrim said:

Well, the fact that this could put everyone at risk of having their node come to a stop that uses a less-overlapping validator list is a big detractor...

Yes. That small risk exists but that is the "price" of permissionless network. By eliminating the risk then there would be just Ripple's UNL to listen to and hence the network would be permissioned. Please correct if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 12:14 AM, Sukrim said:

I don't even disagree, I am just wondering what the standards for inclusion and exclusion for Ripple's recommended UNL are.

Of primary concern for me is a demonstrated technical ability to operate servers reliably securely and a commitment to operating the validator for at least two years.

Being involved in this space is also important (think people like @Rabbit_Kick_Club@karlos and Wietse Wind).

The basic metrics, in my opinion, are pretty objective and surface candidates for inclusion. Server stats, connectivity, security, performance, commitment.

Unless there’s “room” for all candidates (and we can’t just add 10 servers at once!), then selecting amongst them can become a bit subjective. At the very least, there’s a “value judgement” about which one “helps” more right now.

For example, given two equally qualified candidate validators other things become a factor; a validator in, say, South Africa may be preferable to another US validator. But maybe the US one is operated by an exchange and the South African one by an individual which alters the calculus a bit. Or perhaps one candidate is an AWS instance and the other on Azure, and there are already other validators on AWS. I could go on, describing all sorts of situations.

Why X and not Y? Why Y and not X? Why not Z? Ultimately any decision will be seen as subjective by someone; someone will disagree and someone else won’t. It’s just how these things go and that’s not surprising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nikb said:

Of primary concern for me is a demonstrated technical ability to operate servers reliably securely and a commitment to operating the validator for at least two years.

Being involved in this space is also important (think people like @Rabbit_Kick_Club@karlos and Wietse Wind).

The basic metrics, in my opinion, are pretty objective and surface candidates for inclusion. Server stats, connectivity, security, performance, commitment.

Unless there’s “room” for all candidates (and we can’t just add 10 servers at once!), then selecting amongst them can become a bit subjective. At the very least, there’s a “value judgement” about which one “helps” more right now.

 For example, given two equally qualified candidate validators other things become a factor; a validator in, say, South Africa may be preferable to another US validator. But maybe the US one is operated by an exchange and the South African one by an individual which alters the calculus a bit. Or perhaps one candidate is an AWS instance and the other on Azure, and there are already other validators on AWS. I could go on, describing all sorts of situations.

 Why X and not Y? Why Y and not X? Why not Z? Ultimately any decision will be seen as subjective by someone; someone will disagree and someone else won’t. It’s just how these things go and that’s not surprising. 

Is there any plan to make the way in which the list is chosen decentralized in the future? Not complaining, I think its good that a trusting body picks it, it just seems like the final step in decentralization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the logical approach to define standards for inclusion for Ripple's recommended UNL would be the scorecard that consist of all selected variables (geographic location, server instances, etc.). The scoring would prefer validators that are decentralized (in relation to other validators), good reputation, robust security, etc. All validators would get the total score and the highest scoring validators would end up to the Ripple's UNL. That would be the inclusion part. Exclusion part could be determined by time. For instance, every validator that made to the Ripple's UNL would be exluded automatically after X years. After that they have to wait Y years to get next chance selected again to the Ripple's UNL. The scorecard would systematically determine the successor for every predecessing validator.

Edited by hallwaymonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get there various arguments about what constitutes decentralisation but lmao at the idea Ripples UNL needs to be decided by anyone other than ripple.

I think the above response from @nikb sounds perfectly reasonable & great info so thanks for sharing. It's always hard to just quantify things & parameters for making decisions. Sometimes for tendors or such like it is easy to attach a higher weighting to whatever variable & make decisions based on that but in this case I have no problem with ripple putting a qualitative judgment on whatever objective or subjective measure they see fit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...