Jump to content

XRP UNL and Ledger Versions

Recommended Posts

Are the Validators in the UNL solely responsible for the next Ledger Version Or does a Validator not in the UNL also contribute to the consensus algorithm during the creation of the next Ledger Version?

Thank you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the ones in your unl are considered by your server, everything else is purely noise.

If your server is validating as well, it adds itself to the unl and counts its own vote, otherwise the unl consists only of other servers.

There is no "The UNL" by the way, it is a private setting made by each server operator individually.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that not everybody has the same UNL. Hence the name unique node list! There's has to be a sufficient overlap though... Here is some reading.


It's important to understand that merely issuing validation messages does not automatically give your validator a say in the consensus process. Other servers ignore your validation messages unless they add your validator to their Unique Node List (UNL). If your validator is included in a UNL, it is a trusted validator and its proposals are considered in the consensus process by the servers that trust it.

Even if your validator isn't a trusted validator, it stills plays an important role in the overall health of the network. These validators help set the standard that trusted validators are measured against. For example, if a trusted validator is disagreeing with a lot of these validators that aren't listed in UNLs, that might indicate a problem.


Each server defines its own trusted validators, but the consistency of the network depends on different servers choosing lists that have a high degree of overlap. For this reason, Ripple publishes a list of recommended validators.

Read this topic too...


In the XRP Ledger Consensus Protocol, each participant p is responsible for configuring its own UNL, which is a list of other participants that p will accept messages from. Moreover,p will accept as a quorum any set of participants consisting of more than a fixed fraction (defined system-wide by the protocol, e.g. 80%) of its UNL. Maintaining agreement in Ripple’s protocol rests on the assumption that participants will provide sufficiently overlapping UNLs -> roughly 90% for every pair of participants, in the most adversarial model of Chase and MacBrough

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...