Jump to content
xrpmen

Don't validators make XRP centralized?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, lucky said:

if indeed true, the users of the system will make sure that attribute of the system is preserved.

you gotta clarify what you mean by "users".  most users do not run validators so unless they're voting with their wallet, their votes do not matter when it comes to amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lucky said:

These statements contradict each other.

You can change the Rippled source code, AND you can change the number of XRP. 

BUT the outcome is a different XRP, it's not the same as the one you had before you committed the code editing.

Share this post


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

You can change the Rippled source code, AND you can change the number of XRP. 

BUT the outcome is a different XRP, it's not the same as the one you had before you committed the code editing.

Yeah, you're right. Windows 10 is a different system than Windows 95.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a hard fork would be right since it would still be used for xrp. It would just confine which validators would be able to work together. If half of the validators wanted to obstain from updating then they would not be able to communicate or trade xrp (if my thinking is correct). they may be able to trade xrp between on another. So in a sense if you wanted to hoard xrp on an independent network you could set a validator up that can only correspond with validators set up the same way. In a way maybe a good thing, if you wanted security to be absolute between only certain validators. sounds expensive. Ask someone else. I don't know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xrpmen said:

you gotta clarify what you mean by "users".  most users do not run validators so unless they're voting with their wallet, their votes do not matter when it comes to amendments.

User's are voting when they choose which validator they connect to, to submit their transactions to the network. If they use an exchange, the choice of exchange indirectly casts a vote on the exchange's validator and it's UNL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it sounds like if the current 112 validators colluded and introduced a malicious amendment (whether it be to increase the supply or something malicious not requiring a fork), then they can get away with it. and the only way to circumvent this is if users formed a campaign to switch to a validator who supports a new network of rules.  so effectively, users would have to hard fork off if they disagree with the 112 validators malicious amendment.  however, in bitcoin, if miners are less likely to switch their hash to a malicious bitcoin software client because it wouldn't be worth anything. so in bitcoin, miners would have to hard fork to get their malicious way. in xrp, malicious 112 validators dont have to hard fork off, they can take over current network and it's up to the users to hard fork off the current network.

now, this doesnt matter too much i guess because if miners did a 51% attack in bitcoin, users would have to hard fork off also in bitcoin by changing mining algo or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, xrpmen said:

if the current 112 validators colluded and introduced a malicious amendment (whether it be to increase the supply or something malicious not requiring a fork), then they can get away with it

Only if exchanges let them get away with it. Otherwise, they'll boot up their own validators, remove the malicious validators from their UNL's, and move on happily as if nothing has happened, the very same day.

If exchanges would not do that, their users will move to exchanges that do. That's why ultimately users are in charge. And that is why "validators colluding to do something nasty" is a completely hypothetical scenario, because by doing so, they will be kicked out with a simple config change, and will never be trusted again.

Trusting a group of people instead of a central authority, and being able to easily grant and revoke that trust, is a really powerful model.

Edited by lucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, lucky said:

Only if exchanges let them get away with it. Otherwise, they'll boot up their own validators, remove the malicious validators from their UNL's, and move on happily as if nothing has happened, the very same day.

If exchanges would not do that, their users will move to exchanges that do. That's why ultimately users are in charge. And that is why "validators colluding to do something nasty" is a completely hypothetical scenario, because by doing so, they will be kicked out with a simple config change, and will never be trusted again.

Trusting a group of people instead of a central authority, and being able to easily grant and revoke that trust, is a really powerful model.

i agree. i'm trying to find out why bitcoin didn't just use a UNL and nix the mining instead of using XRP's model, tho. surely satoshi must've thought of XRP's model before creating bitcoin and discarded it for a certain reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, xrpmen said:

i agree. i'm trying to find out why bitcoin didn't just use a UNL and nix the mining instead of using XRP's model, tho. surely satoshi must've thought of XRP's model before creating bitcoin and discarded it for a certain reason.

XRP was created after Bitcoin, to get rid of wasteful mining. Here's the first post coining the idea.

Yet XRP could not have been created without Bitcoin kicking in the door of private, non-state controlled currency. The fact that bitcoins are distributed through the powergrid (pay for coins with electricity, meanwhile securing the network) made it impossible to stop. Brilliant idea. Once that door is wide open (almost!) , XRP's consensus model is by far superior over Bitcoin's proof of work, and IMHO, will replace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lucky said:

XRP was created after Bitcoin, to get rid of wasteful mining. Here's the first post coining the idea.

Yet XRP could not have been created without Bitcoin kicking in the door of private, non-state controlled currency. The fact that bitcoins are distributed through the powergrid (pay for coins with electricity, meanwhile securing the network) made it impossible to stop. Brilliant idea. Once that door is wide open (almost!) , XRP's consensus model is by far superior over Bitcoin's proof of work, and IMHO, will replace it.

doesn't XRP still have the issue with centralization of validators? sure, the default UNL has more non-Ripple validators, but the fact remains that those are validators Ripple chose.  when will XRP network rely on validators that are both non-Ripple and not chosen by Ripple? in bitcoin, anybody can be a miner and don't require anybody to listen to them or put them on a UNL. i still think XRP has a ways to go before becoming as decentralized as bitcoin in Some aspects.

yes, if XRP had been created before BTC, the govt would've shut it down and put ripple in jail for issuing a private currency kinda like they did with the Liberty Dollar.  it's interesting that they have let XRP just run w/o shutting ripple down for all these years. sure, validators are more decentralized in the default UNL now, but for past 5 years it hasn't been this way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
28 minutes ago, lucky said:

XRP was created after Bitcoin, to get rid of wasteful mining. Here's the first post coining the idea.

Yet XRP could not have been created without Bitcoin kicking in the door of private, non-state controlled currency. The fact that bitcoins are distributed through the powergrid (pay for coins with electricity, meanwhile securing the network) made it impossible to stop. Brilliant idea. Once that door is wide open (almost!) , XRP's consensus model is by far superior over Bitcoin's proof of work, and IMHO, will replace it.

Funny how Hearn references Fugger in that thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, xrpmen said:

i'm really confused cuz in this thread, David Schwartz says XRP is good for exchanging fiat (which is what Ripple is primarily targeting today with banks) but not a good currency https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144471.0

You have to understand the definition of a currency.  For something to be a true "currency", one of the requirements is that it has to be "of common use".   XRP does not currently satisfy that requirement.  However it is not impossible in the future.

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...