Re: The case for modularizing ILP

On 25 May 2016 at 21:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 16:04, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 25 May 2016 at 15:17, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Melvin,
>>>
>>> The timing is interesting :)
>>>
>>> There is a lot of refactoring going on at the moment to make
>>> implementing ILP on existing ledgers (using the reference source code)
>>> easier and possible through a kind of "plug-in" system.
>>>
>>> Also, the website will be relaunching this week (for a sneak preview see
>>> the v2 branch on github) with a LOT more developer resources. Our focus for
>>> the London workshop on 6 July is very slanted toward developing with ILP
>>> (as opposed to purely development of core ILP components) and we've set
>>> aside the whole afternoon for hacking projects together that use or extend
>>> ILP.
>>>
>>> I hope you can join us in London on 6 July (interledger.org/workshop)
>>>
>>> What I think you'll find most interesting is the awesome work that
>>> Stefan and Evan have been doing in organising the specs into an RFC-style
>>> set at http://github.com/interledger/rfcs (WIP so please take as such)
>>>
>>> I did a presentation at WWWConf a few weeks ago which builds on the
>>> architecture concepts you'll see there and explains the bridge from the
>>> work being done in the W3C Web Payments WG and ILP (and how we are
>>> architecting ILP to get the Internet of Value by creating direct analogies
>>> with the Internet itself).
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/Talks/future-payments-201604.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Oh excellent!  I really hope we can find some common patterns and maybe
>> code reuse!  I think this is a common problem many people have and no one
>> really has the right answer, but lots of people getting close.
>>
>> I guess one of the points of standards is to get different things to all
>> glue together.  I'd be really happy if we can make an eco system that does
>> that.
>>
>
> Exactly. The proposed architecture does a few things.
>
> 1. It puts very few requirements on to ledgers. The complexity sits at the
> connectors who abstract away the differences between ledgers. Ledgers that
> don't support certain functions (like escrow) still fit into the
> architecture but those limitations simply limit the available higher level
> protocols that can be used with them.
>
> 2. It creates a good base for experimentation at different layers. We have
> three transport layer protocols evolving but someone could come forward
> with a new one that proves to be useful too.
>
> 3. There is a blank canvas for application layer protocols. We have
> proposed one (which I know you are not crazy about because it uses
> WebFinger) but you could propose and entirely different one that uses some
> of the same building blocks or something entirely different.
>

This is great, I also have ledger technology which is very dumb.  I havent
got an escrow function, but I can still do lots of stuff.  At some point Id
like to add escrow and then hopefully that gives me more features.

I dont have a problem with my competitors using webfinger :)  Just wont be
reusing that part myself.


>
>
>>
>> I like the idea of hacking projects ...
>>
>
> Hope you can join the workshop!
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> On 25 May 2016 at 10:28, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ILP is a great concept, and I was wondering if we could think about
>>>> breaking it down into self contained modules.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to bet the way some folks are going.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the kind of idea I posted recently:
>>>>
>>>> Ledger
>>>> Block chain -> Ledger
>>>> Central Mint -> Ledger
>>>> Trading -> Testnet3 -> Ledger
>>>> Derivatives -> Trading -> Bitcoin -> Ledger
>>>> Media player -> Block Chain -> Ledger
>>>> Search -> Media Player -> Bitcoin -> Ledger
>>>> DAO -> Smart Contracts -> Block Chain -> Ledger
>>>> Equities -> DAO -> Ledger
>>>> Crowd Funding -> Equities -> DAO -> Ledger
>>>> Bounties -> Ledger
>>>> Github -> Bounties -> Ledger
>>>>
>>>> I'll be implementing this kind of things hopefully over time via
>>>> quantum payments
>>>>
>>>> Here's also an example of bedrock:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/digitalbazaar/bedrock
>>>>
>>>> I know that ripple labs impl. are to an extent modularized but I wonder
>>>> if we could somehow formalize this a bit more.
>>>>
>>>> What would be the core componens of ILP?
>>>>
>>>> With Ledger as the core unit common to most systems.  Since I think
>>>> we're almost all building via nodejs / npm I wonder if it would be of value
>>>> to think about a package manager type thing also.
>>>>
>>>> Im hopefully going to create this over time, probably on a 1-2 year
>>>> time frame, hopefully more in the 1 year than 2.  Would love to hear
>>>> thoughts ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>