- From: Jorge Zaccaro <jorgezaccaro@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:47:34 -0500
- To: Stan Stalnaker <stan.stalnaker@hubculture.com>
- Cc: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>, Mitchell Callahan <callahan@saucal.com>, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer@hackerbots.net>, "public-webpayments@w3.org" <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Message-ID: <CAPnSDnPazV5LgAC1LvJvpO5U+4FEo8a_P=TcwFU4QH9kp2gMdw@mail.gmail.com>
The Stellar fork was handled by temporarily centralizing the system (i.e. descentralized consensus), and it continued to run that way during this year, but I haven't checked if they solved it in their latest whitepaper and codebase update. On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Stan Stalnaker <stan.stalnaker@hubculture.com> wrote: > Stellar did actually fork dec 2014 but it was apparently solved. Ripple > has not yet forked and their team is reportedly mitigating those risks - > given their talent pool I wouldn't worry any more about that than I would a > consensus override on bitcoin from concentrated mining, which also happened > last year. > > > > On 25 Apr 2015, at 20:26, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','contact@taoeffect.com');>> wrote: > > An article from 2013, and it is currently the year 2015. Not to mention a >> comparison to birth defects and abortions. Great. > > > > The latest Stellar Consensus Protocol also has serious issues. > > It appears to have no way to deal with forks, which appear likely to > happen. > > This means the history of payments is likely to diverge, and once it does > it’s unlikely to be reconciled. > > - Greg > > -- > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with > the NSA. > > On Apr 25, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Mitchell Callahan <callahan@saucal.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','callahan@saucal.com');>> wrote: > > 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 > > >
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2015 19:48:02 UTC