1
General Discussion / Re: Transactions as Proof-of-Stake & The End of Mining
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:02:56 am »So effectively a single node can hold out and say... sorry I am not including any transactions until everyone agrees with me not to include any transactions? The entire network would then halt.... I am assuming this is NOT the case which means there exist cases where consensus is reached by many but not all and the guy who is out voted must accept it or move on....Right, but that's fine. The consensus process can fail and no harm is done except there's no consensus. It causes a tiny spike in transaction validation time. Who cares. (Think of a result of a consensus round being like a mined block. They can be orphaned or abandoned. Either they survive or they don't.)
Quote
If the UNL nodes are public, the government could pass a law requiring filtering and then what?The same thing could happen with any scheme. Transactions are public. Say the goverrnment passes a law prohibiting people from accepting Bitcoin transactions on any chain that included specific transactions. Business would know who sent them Bitcoins and could tell if those Bitcoins passed through the prohibited transactions.
Quote
How many nodes are currently participating in the UNL consensus aspect of the Ripple network? Has anyone produced a network topology of a directed graph of UNL lists?We're hoping to have a transition to a large number of distributed validators well underway around June. Currently, Ripple Labs runs five validators and pretty much everyone just uses those five.