Ripple/Stellar Consensus System May Have Serious Issues as Stellar Forks

No offense, but you see things completely backwards.

The fact that he pointed out the deficiencies as early as 2013 and people
are only realizing then now, should be alarming to you.

"Newness" of the post does not reflect its quality. I can point out several
pieces of literature to prove that, which need not be mentioned, as this
point is blatantly obvious.

When it comes to payments, it's merely 1's and 0's. Emotions are
irrelevant.  Furthermore, Mircea being one of, if not the largest holder of
bitcoin, makes his comments incredibly relevant, whether you like them or
not.

Best,
Mitchell

On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer@hackerbots.net>
wrote:

> An article from 2013, and it is currently the year 2015. Not to mention a
> comparison to birth defects and abortions. Great.
>
> I have to say I don't really appreciate reading something like that and
> would
> prefer a much more constructive discussion about web payments.
>
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 11:45:11 AM Mitchell Callahan wrote:
> > My advice is to quit while you're ahead.  As pointed out in 2013 by
> Mircea
> > Popescu, RIPple has serious congenital defects:
> > http://trilema.com/2013/ripple-the-definitive-discussion/
> >
> > Best,
> > Mitchell
> > ᐧ
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 7 December 2014 at 00:04, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> 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_consensu
> > >> s_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.
> > >> """
> > >
> > > Some more issues reported between the founders of ripple and stellar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://insidebitcoins.com/news/not-so-decentralized-ripple-freezes-1m-in-u
> > > ser-funds/31862
> > >
> > > Without knowing all the details, it would appear that in decentralized
> > > systems, centralized artifacts can creep in.
> > >
> > > It's also been particularly difficult to keep the web centralized.  I
> > > wonder if decentralization through incentives (ie payments or block
> chain
> > > technology) could be used to make the web more decentralized.
> > >
> > >> 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/
>
ᐧ