HomeTodays NewsRipple’s CTO comments on Stellar’s 67-minute ‘downtime’ and that something similar could happen to XRPL
Ripple’s CTO comments on Stellar’s 67-minute ‘downtime’ and that something similar could happen to XRPL
May 17, 2019
David Schwartz, the CTO of Ripple, spoke about Stellar Lumens’ network, which was down for almost an hour. He explained how both Ripple and Stellar had traded off double spend problem for the risk of halting.
Stellar Lumens, the ninth largest cryptocurrency, faced a problem when its network stopped validating transactions, leading to the shutdown of the network for 67 minutes. The SDF [Stellar Development Foundation] commented on the matter in a blog and confirmed that this outage was not because of Stellar’s consensus protocol and that it worked as “intended”.
The blog also addressed the “over-centralized” rumor of Stellar as it stated:
“We’ve seen claims that Stellar is “over-centralized” and that somehow a failure with SDF’s nodes dragged down the whole network. Ironically, the opposite is true. Stellar has added many new nodes recently. In retrospect, some new nodes took on too much consensus responsibility too soon. We need better community standards around maintenance timings, quorumset building, and validator configuration.”
Stellar’s Consensus Protocol [SCP] tends to halt when faced with uncertainty than proceed to operate in a potentially inconsistent state. The blog also added ways it could mitigate risk and avoid the “halt” problems in the future.
Since there is a bit of history between Ripple, XRPL, and Stellar, David Schwartz’s reply to Stellar was expected, unlike the Ripple/XRP fanboys poking fun about Stellar’s downtime. Schwartz tweeted:
He further commented saying that a similar thing could also happen to XRP Ledger as, consensus protocol, by design, trades off the risk of double spend for the risk of a halt. He said:
“PoW system make forward progress even where forward progress is unsafe. XRPL and Stellar do not make forward progress under potentially unsafe conditions.”
Schwartz explained the perfect number of validators required to achieve consensus for XRPL and also stated that both the networks have not reached the “state of perfection yet. It’s a slow process with many potential danger zones”. He went on to explain that XRPL was way past these “dangerous possibilities”.