<p>If everyone chooses a completely disparate sets of validators the network will be unlikely to reach consensus that a particular version of the ledger is the one true and accurate ledger. But, in practice, people's UNL lists will overlap. This overlap causes the honest validators to come to the same consensus.</p>

<p>Every honest user of the system wants the system to reach a consensus. Validators will choose which other validators they trust specifically because they also wish to reach a consensus. Essentially, all honest users of the system cooperate to ensure a consensus is reached and maintained. And, of course, a lack of consensus is easily detectable.</p>

<p><strong>To achieve unique node list:</strong></p>

<p>The validators run Ripple nodes which process validations on their behalf. The list of validators that we trust not to collude to defraud us is called our Unique Node List (UNL).</p>

<p>For stronger assurance that something is true, we add more validators to our UNL. For example, we could add Itchy and Scratchy. Who are also not very trustworthy, but are also unlikely to collude to defraud us.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-29T14:05:20.387Z
If we replace `if everyone choose different sets` with `clusters of people choose the same different sets`, what is the impact on consensus? Is that possible? If it's possible, is it a good idea?
makerofthings7
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-29T08:52:58.017Z
2017-12-29T08:52:58.017Z
RohitAneja
<p>What if the Ripple trust network becomes many trust hubs and spokes, and the hubs don't trust each other?</p>

<p>In this extreme case, that could exist due to extreme network segregation, massive trust-mismanagement, or something to this effect...</p>

<p>Is the likely outcome that two hubs will be created, double spends would be possible, and it would be difficult or impossible to recombine the networks?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T22:04:34.657Z
This is probably answered on the [consensus wiki page](https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus).
dchapes
<ripple><alternatives><consensus><ripple-trust>
What happens in an extreme case if Ripple fails to make a consensus? Will that part of the network be segmented off?
makerofthings7
# What happens in an extreme case if Ripple fails to make a consensus? Will that part of the network be segmented off?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-18)

What if the Ripple trust network becomes many trust hubs and spokes, and the hubs don't trust each other?

In this extreme case, that could exist due to extreme network segregation, massive trust-mismanagement, or something to this effect...

Is the likely outcome that two hubs will be created, double spends would be possible, and it would be difficult or impossible to recombine the networks?

**Tags:** ripple, alternatives, consensus, ripple-trust

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This is probably answered on the [consensus wiki page](https://ripple.com/wiki/Consensus).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-12-29. Score: 1

If everyone chooses a completely disparate sets of validators the network will be unlikely to reach consensus that a particular version of the ledger is the one true and accurate ledger. But, in practice, people's UNL lists will overlap. This overlap causes the honest validators to come to the same consensus.

Every honest user of the system wants the system to reach a consensus. Validators will choose which other validators they trust specifically because they also wish to reach a consensus. Essentially, all honest users of the system cooperate to ensure a consensus is reached and maintained. And, of course, a lack of consensus is easily detectable.

**To achieve unique node list:**

The validators run Ripple nodes which process validations on their behalf. The list of validators that we trust not to collude to defraud us is called our Unique Node List (UNL).

For stronger assurance that something is true, we add more validators to our UNL. For example, we could add Itchy and Scratchy. Who are also not very trustworthy, but are also unlikely to collude to defraud us.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If we replace `if everyone choose different sets` with `clusters of people choose the same different sets`, what is the impact on consensus? Is that possible? If it's possible, is it a good idea?  

---

