> > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:42:20 +1000 > From: "James A. Donald" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Ripple's consensus algorithm. > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > 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.
