- From: Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 18:23:04 -0500
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>, Stan Stalnaker <stan.stalnaker@hubculture.com>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
The Ripple whitepaper appears to a) have its main theorem be false, b) even if so, it's main assumption (eq 3 in the paper) is unjustifiable. https://forum.ripple.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7801&sid=f7697c03a839e44aad3999ec70a56178&start=10#p57617 There's some discussion with the authors but it hasn't reached a stable conclusion, especially since David Schwartz seemed to indicate that the actual code differs significantly from the described algorithm. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7 December 2014 at 20:15, Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com> wrote: >> >> Sharing thoughts from Ripple Labs on the issue: >> https://ripple.com/why-the-stellar-forking-issue-does-not-affect-ripple/ >> >> "The Stellar Development Foundation (SDF) which maintains Stellar, a >> network built on a modified version of the Ripple code base, recently >> published a post claiming flaws in the Ripple consensus algorithm. We take >> any reports about possible security issues very seriously and after >> reviewing the information conclude that there is no threat to the continued >> operation of the Ripple network." > > Feedback on ripple the consensus algorithm has come up before on this list. > > [[ > > I think everything *except* the consensus algorithm is terrific. The > consensus algorithm though, in my opinion, is completely nonsensical and no > one seems to be allocating any attention to it. The problem is not with the > algorithm itself, but with the assumptions about what parties are chosen to > participate. > > ]] > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2013Nov/0041.html > > I'm unsure all these concerns were addressed on this list, perhaps the > subsequent release of the ripple white paper [1] may hold some answers > > [1] https://ripple.com/consensus-whitepaper-released/. > > >> >> On Dec 6, 2014 3:40 PM, <stan.stalnaker@hubculture.com> wrote: >>> >>> The fork is a result of a long delay in a transaction block clearing, >>> after which the consensus network decides it is not valid and ignores it >>> when it finally does "unexpectedly" clear. The choice is between freezing >>> the network to wait for the slow block to clear, or to decide to >>> collectively move on. It's been a theoretical issue since inception but this >>> is the first time it's actually happened IRL. The solution is to lengthen >>> the clearing time in a situation like this, slowing the network but reducing >>> the fork risk. >>> >>> >>> It's time for a new kind of money: Ven.VC >>> Original Message >>> From: Manu Sporny >>> Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2014 23:06 >>> To: Web Payments >>> Subject: Re: Ripple/Stellar Consensus System May Have Serious Issues as >>> Stellar Forks >>> >>> On 12/06/2014 05:20 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >>> > Interesting article here >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.coinsetter.com/bitcoin-news/2014/12/06/ripplestellar-consensus-system-may-serious-issues-stellar-forks-1969 >>> >>> This has some interesting info: >>> >>> >>> https://www.stellar.org/blog/safety_liveness_and_fault_tolerance_consensus_choice/ >>> >>> """ >>> This week, we discovered the first instance of a consensus failure. On >>> Tuesday night, the nodes on the network began to disagree and caused a >>> fork of the ledger. The majority of the network was on ledger chain A. >>> At some point, the network decided to switch to ledger chain B. This >>> caused the roll back of a few hours of transactions that had only been >>> recorded on chain A. We were able to replay most of these rolled back >>> transactions on chain B to minimize the impact. However, in cases where >>> an account had already sent a transaction on chain B the replay wasn’t >>> possible. >>> """ >>> >>> I can't seem to find any documentation on the actual set of parameters >>> that would cause a ledger fork to happen. Anyone have a link to a >>> mathematical formula where it was proven/theorized that the event would >>> happen? >>> >>> -- manu >>> >>> -- >>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) >>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments >>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/ >>> >>> >>> >
Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 23:23:37 UTC