Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

stellar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#31

Post by mirekrusin »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #2

I was curious about how this was different from Ripple's approach, I thought this was interesting: > Generally, membership in Byzantine agreement systems is set by a central authority or closed negotiation. Prior attempts to decentralize admission have given up some of the benefits. One approach, taken by Ripple, is to publish a “starter” membership list that participants can edit for themselves, hoping people’s edit…

"... gives maximum freedom ..." nice way of putting the fact that there's basically no consensus; i've got even better idea, with more freedom - everybody can write whatever they want into append only database and they have freedom to choose which bits make sense.

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#32

Post by JonnyNova »

mirekrusin wrote: post #31
neuronexmachina wrote: post #2

I was curious about how this was different from Ripple's approach, I thought this was interesting: > Generally, membership in Byzantine agreement systems is set by a central authority or closed negotiation. Prior attempts to decentralize admission have given up some of the benefits. One approach, taken by Ripple, is to publish a “starter” membership list that participants can edit for themselves, hoping people’s edit…

"... gives maximum freedom ..." nice way of putting the fact that there's basically no consensus; i've got even better idea, with more freedom - everybody can write whatever they want into append only database and they have freedom to choose which bits make sense.

So, IOTA?

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#33

Post by runeks »

zeroxfe wrote: post #16
cantrip wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of this is interesting to you? This paragraph does not explain how they are different from Ripple's approach only that they are in fact different.

> This paragraph does not explain how they are different from Ripple's approach only that they are in fact different. I think the last line sums it up: "SCP is the first Byzantine agreement protocol to give each participant maximum freedom in choosing which combinations of other participants to trust." As opposed to Ripple, where the trust is heavily biased towards the starter membership list, making it more centrali…

> As opposed to Ripple, where the trust is heavily biased towards the starter membership list, making it more centralized than one would want.

It’s biased because of a technical issue (consensus must be reached). How does the Stellar protocol solve this technical issue?

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#35

Post by runeks »

JonnyNova wrote: post #32
mirekrusin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... gives maximum freedom ..." nice way of putting the fact that there's basically no consensus; i've got even better idea, with more freedom - everybody can write whatever they want into append only database and they have freedom to choose which bits make sense.

So, IOTA?

IOTA is not decentralized. Although it allegedly will be in the future.

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#36

Post by jondubois »

When I read white papers, there is only one question I need answered and I feel that the Stellar whitepaper just dances around that question:

Does the algorithm fundamentally require that every transaction have to eventually pass through every node in the network?

The idea of quorum slices seems to imply 'no' but the whitepaper doesn't appear to make any attempt to connect the concept of quorum slices with actual transactions.

Can anyone answer that question?

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#37

Post by wmf »

jondubois wrote: post #36

When I read white papers, there is only one question I need answered and I feel that the Stellar whitepaper just dances around that question: Does the algorithm fundamentally require that every transaction have to eventually pass through every node in the network? The idea of quorum slices seems to imply 'no' but the whitepaper doesn't appear to make any attempt to connect the concept of quorum slices with actual tra…

AFAIK the current implementation of Stellar has every "full node" record every transaction. In general, consensus and scaling should be orthogonal so you should be able to combine SCP with something like sharding if you think that's a good idea.

Re: Stellar Protocol: A Federated Model for Internet-Level Consensus (2016) [pdf]

#38

Post by titanomachy »

throwacide wrote: post #7
mpfundstein wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eli5 please ! ;-)

In other words you can implement arbitrary dynamic trust, Opening up the possibility of arbitrary hierarchies, and much more efficient and robust mechanisms of establishing truth. Authorities could be designed arbitrarily and evolve on top of this core protocol. This so far sounds closer to tcp/ip foundation. Bitcoin would be more like Series of children with a dynamic system of never ending strings and Styrofoam cup…

Somehow I don't think you've met very many 5-year-olds.
Post reply on HN