Popular Post JoelKatz Posted October 2, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 2, 2019 By deliberate design, the XRP Ledger prefers safety over liveness. When it is unclear whether safe operation is possible, the XRP Ledger does not operate. Fortunately, the circumstances under which safe operation are not possible have never happened in the production network and the greater reliability and peace of mind has proven to be at minimal cost. However, this does mean that the number of validators that must fail for the network to stop making forward progress can be fairly low. This requires people to set a high bar for validators they choose to listen to. But keeping the bar high prevents new, less well-funded participants or participants less committed to rapid response to failures and downtime from running validators as the set of candidate validators shrinks to those who are well-funded or committed to rapid response. We propose a design change to improve the network’s reliability in the face of failed validators. This change also eases the trade-off of wanting diverse validators but having to insist on very high quality and response readiness to avoid the risk of a network halt. The idea is as follows: In the ledger would be a list of validators that are believed to be unreliable at the moment. That list would be maintained by the validators using the same mechanism they use to maintain the network fees and amendments. If a validator is in that list, it would still participate in consensus in precisely the same way. The list would have no effect on the consensus process whatsoever. The decision when to consider a ledger fully validated would be adjusted so that servers in the negative UNL list would not count towards the 80% threshold. Imagine a network where everyone has the same UNL and consider what happens if validators start to fail. Without this proposal, as soon as 20% of the validators fail, the network would stop making forward progress. With this proposal, as validators fail, the remaining validators would add them to the list of validators believed unreliable. This would mean the network could keep making forward progress safely even if the number of remaining validators gets to 70% or even slightly lower. This post is one suggestion for an enhancement to the XRP Ledger. See this post for context:https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/33070-suggestions-for-xrp-ledger-enhancements/ You can find all the suggestions in one place here: https://coil.com/p/xpring/Ideas-for-the-Future-of-XRP-Ledger/-OZP0FlZQ Kakoyla, nikb, Baboly and 10 others 12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now