cypherpunks Digest, Vol 14, Issue 11

[Andrew White]

>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:42:20 +1000
> From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
> Subject: Ripple's consensus algorithm.
> Message-ID: <53E7F54C.80805@echeque.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Bitcoin's consensus algorithm is weight of computing power, which is OK
> as long as weight of computing power aligns with interest in bitcoin
> being a useful currency.
>
> Weight of stake would be better, but so far I am unaware of any
> satisfactory proposals for weight of stake.
>
>
This is called "proof of stake" not weight of stake and is different from
Ripple's consensus process.



> Ripples consensus algorithm is weight of club members, and the process
> for getting into the club is opaque, as are the interests and incentives
> of the existing club members.
>

This doesn't really describe how Ripple works. Ripple relies on the
agreement of 80% or more of validator nodes per gateway to verify if a
transaction took place or not. I write more about this in
http://rippleinvestmentguide.com/


>
> I would suppose one gets into the club if no existing member blackballs
> you, which would be fine if there is already sufficient diversity of
> interests within the club.
>

Only if 80% of the networks validator nodes do that which is in practice
not likely to happen on a large enough scale.


>
> It is not obvious to me how well the ripple consensus algorithm would
> work in the event of substantial conflicts between club members, or bad
> behavior by club members, or bad things happening to the network.


> Has it been analyzed for performance in the event of bad behavior by
> some club members?
>

I'll ping David Schwartz one of the co-inventors about this question.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140811/d808a7c0/attachment.html>