- From: Arie Yehuda Levy Cohen <arielevycohen@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:29:34 -0400
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-interledger@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJ+R0wSad1W4NsN4K7SfmfLEON+_fCPR9MEy5kHsTJYC4Aie5g@mail.gmail.com>
Good point Dave; I wonder what everyone thinks about that? Also, and riding on your initiative to start a discussion via this channel (which is the idea), here are some thoughts/questions to add to the discussion; 1. how do we vet "trust" of the connectors? 2. in a world of risk mitigation and systemic risk exposure, would it be safe to say that having different types of connectors is wise? - ie; banks in all jurisdictions - wire houses v regional - commercial v IB's - cpa's, accountants - lawyers/barristers 3. would there be a need to rate these connectors or give them a "score" akin to rating agencies? - on speed / response time? - proactivity and accountability? - crypto escrow insurance? 4. given the connector ultimately holds the money for however long in "escrow": - is there counterparty risk relative to where the escrow money sits (call it escrow risk??)? - could central banks play a role here? - IMF / BIS? 5. in the case of Identity being critical, would there not be a strong case for Security? - dynamic keys? - 3FFA? -- Heritage & Legacy Advisory | Multi-Generational Wealth Preservation ARIE Y. LEVY-COHEN FINANCIAL ADVISOR | INTERNATIONAL CLIENT ADVISOR PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT | NEW YORK ECONOMICS | FINANCE | BLOCKCHAIN TECH P: 917.692.6999 On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > All, > > I asked a question during the interledger presentation inquiring about > what information is leaked about senders/recipients to connectors. The > question was answered from the perspective of an "altruistic" connector, > essentially that connectors don't need to know all that much so they'll > only use whatever is necessary to help complete a payment. > > However, I was thinking more of rational or byzantine connectors. Is > there anything in the protocol to discourage entities from creating > connectors that provide cheap paths to complete payments -- so that they > can, for instance, track (and potentially sell) sender or recipient > behavior? Is there anything in the protocol to help protect privacy? > > While it appears that the protocol does a lot to guard against > adversaries that seek to attack the payments themselves, but what about > other attacks or "abuse" of meta-data? By introducing third parties > (connectors) into the payments process, there may be other undesirable > behaviors that aren't directly related to payments that need to be > mitigated. > > > -- > Dave Longley > CTO > Digital Bazaar, Inc. > http://digitalbazaar.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:30:04 UTC