W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2015

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

From: Jorge Zaccaro <jorgezaccaro@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 14:47:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPnSDnPazV5LgAC1LvJvpO5U+4FEo8a_P=TcwFU4QH9kp2gMdw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:39 UTC