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

61–66 of 66 posts

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

#61

Post by dang »

suckmydang wrote: post #3

When Stellar's codebase was still just a fork of Ripple (entire codebase was completely re-written from scratch in 2015), it experienced many divergent forks of the network due to weaknesses in the Ripple consensus protocol. Those weaknesses have been eliminated in the new SCP described in this paper, but AFAIK Ripple still has these systemic problems. The new Stellar codebase is actually a joy to work with.

Fine comment, but you can't make an account with a trollish name, even when it's the local superego you're trolling. If you want to participate on HN in good faith, that's great, but then please really do so. Continued abuse of HN will eventually get your main account banned too, so please just don't.

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

#62

Post by xwvvvvwx »

Torn wrote: post #59
runeks wrote: post #34

There’s a great, three year old HN thread about the Stellar protocol, starting with a critique by Gregory Maxwell ( nullc ) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9342348

Stellar was re-written in 2015, so I suspect this critique will be of the legacy Ripple protocol

The linked comment thread is on this post announcing SCP:

https://www.stellar.org/blog/stellar-consensus-protocol-proo...

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

#63

Post by hobofan »

econner wrote: post #54
bbayer wrote: post #15

Stellar is one of the robust and undervalued asset. It has great potential and I think this year we will see lots of intereting things built on top of Stellar.

But why should XLM have any value? Isn’t it just a means to transfer other things?

Because any value that is not directly cashed out of XLM stays in XLM.

One application that uses XLM as its native currency is SatoshiPay[0] (that's how I got to know Stellar).

[0]: https://satoshipay.io/

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

#64

Post by gregknicholson »

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.

This is a very lucid description of how Secure Scuttlebutt works.

SSB is deliberately “against consensus”, which makes it useless as a trustless decision-making tool. So I take your point that this property of Stellar seems to make Stellar useless for its stated purpose. (I haven't read the paper, so I may be very wrong.)

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

#65

Post by doomslice »

Neutrion wrote: post #58
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.

Your doubt is legit, afterall they may not be so different: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Jed-McCaleb-leave-Ripple-to-st...

Response from Jed that I stumbled on the last time I was researching this. Oddly enough, I cannot find the response on Quora anymore.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/7n8ntb/david_schwa...

> David I always enjoyed working with you and I thought we had a degree of respect for each other so I'm pretty disappointed in your tone here. I don't really want to get into a big back and forth about this but this just isn't correct. When I left ripple the board was 2 people; myself and Chris.

> I left because I made the mistake of bringing Chris on as CEO and it ended up being untenable to work with him for a variety of reasons.

> I feel like I've been extremely restrained in my criticism of ripple despite the frivolous lawsuits from you guys the constant attacks on my character and my family. I know you are actually a good person but I think you are in too deep to see how horrible Chris has acted toward me.

> Stellar hasn't abandoned the idea of distributing the lumens widely and the original facebook distribution was actually a success but the software/ecosystem wasn't ready for it at the time so we stopped it. We will do something similar in the future. I don't think any attempt at an internet level protocol like stellar or ripple can be widely adopted with a for profit company owning the majority of the tokens.

> Stellar has always been focused on cross border payments so the IBM announcement isn't a pivot by any means.

> Stellar and ripple are going after two completely different use cases as far as I can tell so I don't understand the continued hostility.

Post reply on HN