W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > October 2015

Re: A Web of Ledgers [via Interledger Payments Community Group]

From: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:21:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFwScO9y0BoBSWjq8ZKsfgsm=aiBgy+2_aNz9cJn2gni1WqUyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Interledger Payments Community Group <ij@w3.org>, public-interledger@w3.org
The concept doesn't exist in a vacuum

http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/glossaryofaccountingterm/g/definition-ledger.htm

implies, for instance "chart of accounts" and "journal"

it seems to me that the proper focus is the messages between the
ledgers, in general enough way that the internal details of ledgers --
the Dogecoin block chain on one end of the spectrum, pen and ink on
the other -- don't matter.

I like DHT hashes for identifiers; DHT hashes of public keys even
more. By using Distributed Hash Table instead of Domain Name Service
to identify and connect to a ledger service, several administrative
functions (and associated secutity issues) just disappear >poof<.

Double Spending is obviously resolved by requiring per-spend
round-trips to a ledger service or its authorized delegate; Forgery is
obviously resolved by relying on public key signing.

The devil is in the details of course; the above points are what I've
been thinking about, and would welcome venture backing to take a year
off and focus on, but have not been aggressively pursuing outside of
statements such as this one.






On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to see a ledger defined somewhere.  In particular the minimal
> fields that can be used to create a ledger, which I think are:
>
> <identifier> : <amount>
>
> And an extensibility mechanism.
>
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 18:22:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 October 2015 18:22:13 UTC