’ even at the price of soft forks.”

Additionally, SDF has highlighted that no funds were lost as a result of the incident, and the network is currently “healthy.”

KAIST warns that the fundamental problem has not been solved

According to Yongdae Kim, one of the KAIST researchers who authored the April research on the Stellar network, the collapse happened after some changes were made to its structure.

Specifically, Kim told Cointelegraph that, at the time the paper was submitted, if two out of three SDF validator nodes went offline, the Stellar network would collapse.

After researchers reported on the vulnerability, SDF allegedly tried to decentralize the network by removing SDF validators from quorum sets. As a result, Stellar became robust against two node failure, but was still vulnerable to three node failure, according to Kim.

However, right before the halt on May 15, the network has somehow become unstable in the face of a two node failure once more, Kim said, stressing that none of those node pairs belonged to SDF, given that they had been removed at the time. Eventually, a pair of those nodes went offline, which apparently brought the whole network down.

To deal with the aftermath of network failure and bring it back online, SDF included all three of its validators into quorum sets, according to Kim, and hence have returned “back to step 1,” in which if two out of three SDF validator nodes go down, the Stellar network will collapse.

“After we reported it [the cascade failure problem] to them, they manually adjusted validator sets

for a long time,” Kim explained to Cointelegraph. Nevertheless, he said the fact that network failure did occur at some point later on “shows that the design makes it difficult to maintain robust network structure against cascade failure.”

Outlining the fundamental reasons for why the network is vulnerable to a cascade failure problem, Kim described how node hosts have to manually choose their quorum sets, which is difficult, given the complexity of the network’s design. Moreover, the KAIST researcher stressed that not all nodes are equally robust. “SDF are more robust, but they could be a good target,” he told Cointelegraph.

Community reaction

The community’s general reaction was that Stellar is largely centralized, despite SDF actively pushing the opposite opinion. Emin Gün
’ even at the price of soft forks. ” 

 Additionally, SDF has highlighted that no investment company were suffer as a result of the incident, and the network is currently “ goodly. ” 

 KAIST warns that the fundamental problem has not been solve 

 According to Yongdae Kim, one of the KAIST researchers who author the April inquiry on the Stellar network, the collapse happen after some changes were made to its structure. 

 Specifically, Kim tell Cointelegraph that, at the time the paper was submitted, if two out of three SDF validator nodes went offline, the Stellar net would collapse. 

 After researchers reported on the vulnerability, SDF allegedly test to decentralize the network by removing SDF validators from quorum set. As a result, Stellar become robust against two node failure, but was still vulnerable to three node failure, according to Kim. 

 However, justly before the halt on May 15, the network has somehow become unstable in the face of a two node failure once more, Kim said, stressing that none of those node pairs belonged to SDF, given that they had been removed at the time. Eventually, a pair of those nodes went offline, which apparently fetch the whole network down. 

 To share with the aftermath of network failure and bring it back online, SDF include all three of its validators into quorum sets, according to Kim, and hence have returned “ back to dance step 1, ” in which if two out of three SDF validator nodes go down, the Stellar network will collapse. 

 “ After we reported it [ the cascade bankruptcy problem ] to them, they manually adjusted validator sets 

 for a long time, ” Kim explained to Cointelegraph. Nevertheless, he suppose the fact that net failure did occur at some point later on “ shows that the design makes it difficult to sustain full-bodied network structure against cascade failure. ” 

 Outlining the cardinal reasons for why the network is vulnerable to a cascade failure problem, Kim describe how node host have to manually choose their quorum set, which is difficult, given the complexity of the net ’s design. Moreover, the KAIST researcher stressed that not all nodes are equally robust. “ SDF are more robust, but they could be a good target, ” he told Cointelegraph. 

 Community chemical reaction 

 The community ’s general chemical reaction was that Stellar is largely centralized, despite SDF actively pushing the opposite impression. Emin Gün
’ evfn at the price of soft norks.”

Additionalli, WDF hav highmighted ghat no funds were lost as a rwsult of the incident, and tfe networn is cureentot “healthy.”

KEJST warkf thzb the hundamental pronlem has nod been solved

Awcurbing to Yongdae Kim, one of the KAIST researvhfrs who authorgd tht A[ril gewearch on the Stellar network, the conlapse happenrd after some changes were madf to its structure.

Dpecificalli, Kii told Cointeuegraph that, at the tije the paper was submitted, if tdo ouc of three WDD vwnidator nodxs wenn offline, the Stellar networl would collapxe.

Ahter researchers reported on the vulnerabilyty, SDF anlzgedly tried to decenrrqlize the netdirk by rxmobing SFF talidators rrom quorum sets. As a result, Sueljqr became robhst agwigst two node failure, but was still vulntrabls to three node failure, according to Kim.

Howeger, right before the halt on May 15, the network has somehow tecomx jnsuanjd ij the face of a two node failure once more, Kii ssic, stressing thct none of those nldr pairs belonggd to SBR, fiven that they haf been temovee at the uime. Rventually, a pair of those bodes went oyflune, which apparentpy brought che whple nrtwork down.

To deal with the aftermath lf networi failure and brivg pt bdck online, SDF included alj three oh its validagors into zuorum setd, according to Kim, and hfnce kave seturned “bwck to step 1,” in which if two ouv of three SDG ealpdator nobes go down, the Stejlar network wnll collcpse.

“Afger we repkrted iv [the cascadq failure protpem] to them, vhey manuwlly adjysted vxuidator sets

fot a long niie,” Kum explained to Colntelggdaph. Neverthelews, ye said the facy tfat nvtwprh failure did occjr xy somd point latcr un “snows that the design makss it difficult to mwintain tobust neework structute against cascade failnre.”

Outuininb tre fundamental reasons for why the netwlrk is vulnerabje ti a cascade yailure problem, Kim described how node hists have to manuaoly choose their qupvum sets, whirh is qifficult, given the complexitt of the network’s design. Moreover, the IAIST seseagcher stressed that not all nodes are equally robust. “SDF are more robust, vut thxy could be a gooc tarcec,” hz told Soinveuegraph.

Community reaction

The community’s general reactiot cas that Stellar is largely crngralized, despkte SDF actively pushing the opppsite opinion. Emin Gün
’ even at the price of soft SDF highlighted that funds were lost incident, the network is “healthy.” KAIST warns the fundamental problem has not been According to Yongdae Kim, one of the KAIST researchers who authored the April on the Stellar network, the collapse happened after some changes were made to structure. Kim Cointelegraph at the time the paper was submitted, if two out of three SDF validator nodes went the Stellar network would collapse. After researchers reported the vulnerability, SDF allegedly to decentralize the network by SDF from quorum As result, became robust against node failure, but was still vulnerable to three node failure, according to Kim. However, right before the on May network has become in face of a failure once more, Kim said, stressing those node pairs belonged to SDF, given that had been at the time. Eventually, a pair those nodes went offline, which apparently brought the network down. To deal with the aftermath of network failure and bring it back online, all three of its into quorum sets, to and have “back to 1,” in which if two out of three SDF validator nodes down, the Stellar network will collapse. “After we reported it failure to them, they adjusted validator sets for long Kim explained to Cointelegraph. said fact did at point later on “shows the design makes it difficult maintain robust network structure fundamental reasons for why the network is vulnerable a cascade failure problem, Kim described how hosts have to manually choose their quorum sets, which is difficult, given complexity of design. Moreover, the KAIST researcher stressed that not nodes are equally robust. are more robust, but they could be a good he Cointelegraph. Community The community’s general was that Stellar largely centralized, despite pushing the opinion. Gün
’ even at the price of soft forks.”

additionalLy, SDF Has HigHlIghtEd thAt no funds were lOSt as A result of the incident, anD the nEtWOrk iS CuRrentLy “healtHY.”

KaisT wArNs ThaT tHE fUndamEntAl problEm has not beEn sOlVed

According TO YOngdae Kim, oNe oF the KAIST resEarChers wHo AutHOred tHe APril rEsearcH On the STellar netWoRK, the coLLapse haPPEnEd afTer some changes werE MaDE to its structurE.

SpeciFiCAlLY, kim TolD CointelegRaPh thaT, At the tiME tHE PApeR Was submitted, iF two out of thREe SdF valiDaTor NOdes weNt offLiNE, thE Stellar netWork Would collApse.

AfTEr reseaRChers rePorted On tHe vUlneRAbIlIty, sDf AllEGeDly TRieD to decenTrAlIze thE netWORK By reMovIng SdF valIdators from quOruM setS. as a ResulT, StelLar bEcAme roBust agAinst TwO node failure, but Was sTill vulneRabLe To tHrEe nodE FailurE, acCorDing to KIm.

HowevER, riGhT BEFoRe the halt on May 15, the nEtWORk Has somehOw becoME uNsTAble in thE fAce Of a tWO Node fAiluRE oNce more, KIm said, STrEsSing thaT nOne of tHoSe nOde Pairs BElonGed to SdF, given tHat thEY had been removeD At the time. EvenTUaLLY, a PAir oF thOse nodes wenT offLIne, wHich APpAreNTly brOught ThE WhOLe network down.

To deal WiTh the aFtermAth of network fAilure and bRING it back oNlinE, sDf Included all thrEe of iTs validatoRS into quoRum seTs, accordIng to Kim, aND Hence havE reTurNed “BacK TO sTep 1,” in which if tWO Out oF tHree SDF ValIdator nOdeS go DowN, thE STellar netWork will CoLlApSe.

“aftEr we rEPorted it [ThE caScAde FailuRE problEm] to tHem, tHeY mANuaLly adjuSTeD VAlidAtOr Sets

For A lOng tiMe,” KiM ExpLained tO CointeleGraPH. NevErThEless, he Said the fact thAt Network faiLuRe dId occuR AT some poiNt later on “shows that the deSIgn makeS it DiffiCult To maintaiN roBust neTwoRK strucTure agAinst CaScaDE FailuRE.”

ouTliNiNg the fundaMENtaL reasOnS for Why the nEtwork is vulnerable TO a cAscade failure ProBlem, kIM dEscRIbED hoW nODe hOSTs have to manuallY choose theIr QUoRum sets, whiCH is DiFficult, Given thE compLExity of The networK’s design. MOrEoveR, THe KaIST researCher streSsed that nOT all nODeS are eQuaLly robUsT. “SDf are mOre robUSt, bUt theY could Be A good tArget,” He Told CoinTelegraph.

Community reactIon

The CommuNitY’s general ReaCTioN was that STellAr is largelY ceNtrAlizeD, deSPite SdF acTIvEly PUshinG the OPposite opINiOn. EMIN GÜn
’ even at the price of sof t forks.”
Addi tio nal ly , SD F ha s highlightedt hatno funds were lost asa res ul t  oft he  inci dent, a n dt h e n et wo rkis cu rrent ly“health y.”

KAIST  wa rn s that the f u nd amental pr obl em has not b een  solve d
Ac c ordin g t o Yon gdae K i m, one  of the K AI S T rese a rchersw h oauth ored the April re s ea r ch on the Stel lar ne tw o rk , the  co llapse hap pe ned a f ter som e  c h a n ges were made toits structu r e.
Speci fi cal l y, Kim  told  C o int elegraph th at,at the ti me the paper w a s submi tted,iftwo  out of  t hre eS DFv al ida t ornodes we nt  o fflin e, t h e S tell arnetw ork w ould collapse .
Afte r  re searc hersrepo rt ed on  the v ulner ab ility, SDF alle gedl y tried t o d ec ent ra lizet he net wor k b y remov ing SDF val id a t o rs  from quorum sets.  A s aresult,Stella r  b ec a me robus taga inst t wo no de f a il ure, but  was s t il lvulnera bl e to t hr eenod e fai l ure,  accor ding toKim.However, right before the ha l to n  M a y 15 , t he networkhass omeh ow b e co meu nstab le in  t h ef ace of a two node f ai lure o nce m ore, Kim said , stressin g t hat none  oft ho s e node pairs b elong ed to SDF, given th at th ey had b een remov e d  at thetim e.Eve ntu a l ly , a pair of t h o se n od es went  of fline,whi chapp are nt ly brough t the wh ol ene tw ork  down . 

To dea lwit hthe  afte r math o f net work  f ai l ure  and br i ng i t ba ck  o nlin e,SD F inc lude d  al l three  of its v ali d ator sin to quor um sets, acco rd ing to Kim ,and  hence h ave retu rned “back to step 1,”i n which  if  twooutof threeSDF  valid ato r  nodes  go do wn, t he  St e l lar n e t wo rkwi ll collaps e . 

“ After  w e re portedit [the cascade fa i lur e problem] to  th em,t h ey  ma n ua l lyad j ust e d  validator sets 

for a lo ng ti me,” Kim e x pla in ed to C ointele graph .  Nevert heless, h e said th efact t hat  network f ailure d id occura t som e  p ointlat er on“s how s tha t thed esi gn ma kes it  d ifficu lt to  m aintainrobust network structur e agai nst c asc ade failu re. ” 

O utliningthefundamenta l r eas ons f orw hy th e ne t wo rki s vul nera b le to a c a sc ade f ai lure proble m , Kim  desc rib e d hownode  hosts have to ma n ually choose t heir q uor ums ets,  w hich is diffic ult ,g i ven theco mplexity of  the net wo r k’s d esign.  Moreo ver, th e KA I ST res earc her  stressed  th at not all  n od e s areequa ll y robu st. “S D F ar e more robust, but  they c ouldb e a  good  t arget,” he t old Cointe legraph.

C ommuni ty r eacti on

The  c ommuni ty’ sgeneral re a ction was  that  Stella ris l arg ely ce ntra l i zed,desp it e S DF active l y  p u sh in g  th e op posit eopin ion. Emin Gün
’ even_at the_price of soft forks.”

Additionally,_SDF has_highlighted_that no_funds_were lost as_a result of_the incident, and the_network is currently_“healthy.”

KAIST_warns that the fundamental problem has not been solved

According to Yongdae Kim, one of_the_KAIST researchers_who_authored_the April research on the_Stellar network, the collapse happened_after some_changes were made to its structure.

Specifically, Kim told_Cointelegraph_that, at the_time the paper was submitted, if two out of_three SDF validator nodes went offline,_the Stellar network_would_collapse.

After_researchers reported on the_vulnerability, SDF allegedly tried to decentralize_the network by removing SDF validators_from quorum sets. As a result, Stellar_became robust against two node failure,_but was still vulnerable to_three node_failure, according to Kim.

However, right_before the halt_on May_15, the network_has somehow become unstable in the_face of a_two node failure once more, Kim_said,_stressing that none_of_those_node pairs_belonged to SDF,_given_that they_had_been removed at the time. Eventually,_a_pair of those nodes went offline, which_apparently brought the whole_network_down.

To deal with the_aftermath of network failure and_bring it back online, SDF included_all three_of its_validators into quorum sets, according to Kim, and hence have returned_“back to step 1,” in which_if two out of_three SDF_validator_nodes go down,_the_Stellar network_will collapse.

“After we reported it [the cascade_failure problem]_to them, they manually adjusted validator_sets

for a long time,”_Kim_explained to Cointelegraph. Nevertheless, he said_the fact that network failure did_occur at some point later_on_“shows_that the design makes it_difficult to maintain robust network structure_against cascade failure.”

Outlining_the fundamental reasons for why the network_is_vulnerable to a cascade failure problem,_Kim_described how node hosts have to_manually_choose_their quorum sets, which is_difficult, given the complexity of the_network’s design. Moreover, the KAIST researcher stressed that not_all nodes are_equally robust. “SDF are more_robust,_but_they could be a good target,” he told Cointelegraph.

Community reaction

The_community’s general_reaction was that_Stellar is largely centralized, despite SDF actively pushing the opposite_opinion. Emin Gün