- From: Frédéric Meignien <frederic.meignien@cantonconsulting.fr>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:04:43 +0100
- To: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>, Jae Kwon <jae@tendermint.com>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Hello, I join the discussion because I think it's a very good idea to add statuses to the ledger. Saying that the ledger is written is not enough, it sounds better to have a status saying "allowed" to make it clear that the transaction was authorized by Bank-A (since, of course, the transaction has to be allowed at the very start of the process). some more question: how a transaction is traced all along its path through the connectors and ledgers ? A unique ID ? Thanks Frédéric. Le 29/10/2015 19:01, David Nicol a écrit : > > On the other hand, complaining that some proposed inter-ledger > communications protocol fails to address the issues that some > particularly complicated ledger system effectively addresses may miss > the point of talking about inter-ledger communications protocols. > > Blockchain provides completely replicated distributed ledger data at > high energy cost. > > Bitcoin Blockchain is a ledger. Collected journal entries are written > into it about every ten minutes. The service of writing journal > entries to the ledger is continuously auctioned. > > Operations at the ledger level include: > > ways to insert new journal entries > ways to reject/allow/accept journal entries > ways to query ledger state > purging policy > > I just came up with "allow/accept" to differentiate between temporary > and settled states of a journal entry. An "allowed" entry would be > like a credit card hold, an "accepted" entry would be like a > transaction that has been written into the blockchain and verified. > There may be better choices for those words. > > >
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 21:05:26 UTC