Showing posts from July, 2017

Several possible attacking modes on XRP ledger There are several degrees of damage, that trusted validators can do (if they decide to give up their hard-earned trust), in increasing difficulty order: If a set of them, each of which only trust others in the same set, with less than 20% of them trust validators not in that set, decide to collude, they can create fork. If more than 20% of them decide to collude, they can prevent transactions from being validated. If more than 80% of them decide to collude, they can rewrite history as they wish.  However, as pointed out by mDuo13@, creating a fork is easy, but making people accept it is hard.

Ripple's XRP: Giving the Third-Largest Cryptocurrency a Second Look

Image It's not news that coindesk is very biased against Ripple. But publishing such an article is crossing the line. This author either really didn't know Ripple well, or he just wanted to mislead people. It's a shame for coindesk to publish such a garbage. I will refute some of the claims made in that article. "Instead of using proof-of-work, it relied on a new, unproven consensus protocol." Calling ripple consensus protocol is unproven is a bold assertion. Yet it didn't even try to back it up. On the other hand, XRP ledger has been in use for years and there has been no reports that it doesn't work. And it has defended itself against Stellar's attack once. "This protocol requires users to extend trust to validating servers that produce this consensus." False. Users only need to trust gateway. Users never need to trust validator. Validators need to