W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-blockchain@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Chainpoint Community Group Announcement

From: Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo <adan@stampery.co>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:48:39 +0200
To: Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net>, Wayne Vaughan <wayne@tierion.com>, public-blockchain@w3.org
Cc: Douglas Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Jason Bukowski <jason@tierion.com>, Tom Kysar <tom@tierion.com>
Message-ID: <18879dac-4b69-3b6d-9a4e-3061592645bc@stampery.com>
Hi Mountie,

> could you switch document mode you attached
> to allowing comments?
Done! Sorry it was not allowed by default.
> how to cover or handle private chains?
> many groups are trying to handle blockchain privately with reduced
> difficulties.
> even some private chains has very low trust than the public chains.
> actually can not define it is blockchain.
That is a question that needs to be first faced from the "group scope"
There is an ongoing heated debate on whether it really does make sense
to anchor data into a private blockchain.
Either way, it would be possible by using a URI anchor type as Wayne
just said—thanks for saving me the explanation ;)
> who and how define chainID?
The Community Group and eventually the Working Group should be in charge
of defining them. "How" will depend on the governance model chosen by
the group itself.
> some groups are not trying to load data on OP_RETURN script to reduce
> or postpone the tx fee to consumer side(meaning putting data on input
> script).
> who and how define anchor type?
That's a really good point. OP_RETURN is not the only way to anchor data
into the Bitcoin blockchain (e.g. OpenTimestamps).
In the case of Ethereum, AFAIK,  there are at least two different
methods as well.


Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo
CTO, Stampery Inc.
San Francisco - Madrid
T: +34 663 163 375
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 17:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:26 UTC