[ad_1]
In a recent interview on Ripple's official YouTube channel, David Schwartz, the Ripple CTO touched on the main differences between Bitcoin [BTC] and XRP. He also discussed the differences in the malleability of transactions between the two digital currencies. Schwartz said:
"There are two fundamental differences between XRP and Bitcoin: one is that XRP uses consensus instead of work proofs like Bitcoin, but the other is that XRP was built from the beginning in order to be able to negotiate arbitrary resources such as dollars or Yuans. "
He also added:
" As for the malleability of transactions, Bitcoin and XRPs basically have similar problems because XRP also has transaction IDs and users are also able to change the XRP signature. "
According to Schwartz, XRP will implement its own solution so that people can track transactions by transaction ID.
Schwartz said that, unlike Bitcoin, XRP is not vulnerable in one aspect of the malleability of transactions. In XRP, a user does not refer to the previous exits for transaction ID, but refers to previous exits per account. This is the key difference between Bitcoin and XRP. Therefore, there is no way a user or miner can cause another user's transaction jam, he added.
Schwartz further explained how XRP works because it does not require the existence of miners like other cryptocurrencies. He said:
"I like to model the protocol in a room full of people who are constantly agreeing with each other, so if you want to run a transaction in XRP, in practice enter this metaphorical room and read the transaction.If the transaction is valid and there is no reason why it should not be agreed, essentially everyone in the room nods: "Yes, this seems good to me."
Also added: [19659002] "These validators calculate a new ledger in which the above operation took place and all agree on the hash of the new ledger. "
The CTO further explained that as soon as a user has a greater superiority, with the validators all in accordance with the new ledger hash, the user should therefore know that the transaction is confirmed. in which the user sends the same funds to someone else can not occur, Schwartz said that this happens because the funds have already been sent to the user in the ledger that the validators have agreed on.
According to Schwartz In this scenario, users can not double the spend because they have already cryptographically signed everything.If a validator has a cryptographic signature that shows the user the approval of two conflicting transactions, the validator then has the proof that the user is malicious.All validators have to do later, present the evidence to the people and expose them to their malicious intent.
This essentially solves the problem of the double expense, but did not find a solution for the malleability of the transactions. David concluded by saying:
"The problem of malleability in XRP still exists if you try to track transactions by ID. A user would never say," oh this transaction was not successful, it's better that you send a & "But if they did, they could potentially be tracked in. So we'll close that hole completely by using a solution similar to the one Bitcoin uses, we'll announce it in a couple of days."
[ad_2]Source link
