Ripple (XRP) Community to Ensure the Network to Forward Progress to Cash Out

Decentralized infrastructure, modernized messaging, and liquidity solutions are the important RippleNet Capabilities.

RippleNet and XRP are different.  RippleNet being a payment network does not move money.  David Schwartz in the past clarified stating that the actual movement of money is called settlement.  XRP as an asset is used in the settlement process.  XRP trades on the public ledger.  XRP does not have a physical location and the ownership can change in just a few seconds.  Since the XRP has a value it is used in the process of settling payments with nothing left to do afterwards.  XRP is the settlement asset. And, RippleNet is the Network.

Sydney Ifergan, the crypto expert tweeted:  “Ripple (XRP) Engineering team have interestingly come forward to quantify the environmental impact of payments systems, which is explained in a blog series. Good to know.”

It is interesting to see that the efforts of Ripple are aligned to the goals of the IMFnews.  The price conscious part of the community has to state that there is lot of news and very less action.

Some feel they are focusing more on the environment and that they need to spend more time bringing utility to XRP so that the community can cash out.

Ripple (XRP) Different from Other Public Blockchains

David Schwartz stated that XRPLwas designed to be fundamentally different from other public blockchains – and for good reason.  He further stated that PoW mechanisms are focused on transactions that are complex and are not designed to evolve. However, a consensus validation system he states is like XRPL, which better ensures that the ledger can make safe forward progress.

He also pointed to how consensus also better protects against the double-spend problem and unintentional forking and also on how this is why development of XRPL’s consensus algorithm never stops.

He also cited:  One example of this is Negative UNL, which was recently proposed to ensure improved decentralization and resilience of the XRPL doesn’t come at the cost of increased risk of validator outages causing problems.

He clarified with a comparison stating, unlike what ETH has been trying to attempt in its move to PoS, Negative UNL would dramatically improve the consensus mechanism WITHOUT negatively affecting the uptime or governance of the network.

Concluded stating that pending public testing, we could see Negative UNL functionality introduced for review in the XRPL2 release. But it’s ultimately up to the community to ensure the network continues forward progress.

By clarification, “safe forward progress” it can mean ledgers closing (safer) or the network developing in new ways (evolve) as well.

Credit: Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *