You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To me the unique strength of Stellar is it's concept of quorum slices and the idea that trustlines have to be explicitly established.
We are working on anchoring a financial instrument onto Stellar. To comply with (EU) regulations we need some sort of control over the ledger. We can not just say, the truth equals what's accounted on the 'mainnet'.
Both because we don't have enough control over what direction the people behind the mainnet take and because its inherently difficult to define the mainnet with 'fluid' quorum slices.
So we plan to instead make a statement about which specific quorum slice can be considered the truth in case there ever will be a lack of overlap between Stellar nodes.
However there will still probably be still confusion among investors as the asset will stay 'active' on the deviated set of nodes.
Would it be an interesting feature (and computationally feasible) to be able to link an asset to a quorum slice? So that operations concerning that asset are only validated if the quorum slice accepts them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
To me the unique strength of Stellar is it's concept of quorum slices and the idea that trustlines have to be explicitly established.
We are working on anchoring a financial instrument onto Stellar. To comply with (EU) regulations we need some sort of control over the ledger. We can not just say, the truth equals what's accounted on the 'mainnet'.
Both because we don't have enough control over what direction the people behind the mainnet take and because its inherently difficult to define the mainnet with 'fluid' quorum slices.
So we plan to instead make a statement about which specific quorum slice can be considered the truth in case there ever will be a lack of overlap between Stellar nodes.
However there will still probably be still confusion among investors as the asset will stay 'active' on the deviated set of nodes.
Would it be an interesting feature (and computationally feasible) to be able to link an asset to a quorum slice? So that operations concerning that asset are only validated if the quorum slice accepts them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: