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

Re: Vetting connectors (was Interledger and Privacy)

From: Arie Yehuda Levy Cohen <arielevycohen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:35:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ+R0wRa4u6538Qu18wQkizoDuJT9DVOL1YYsCygrnRRYsnMtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Yes Adrian...in principle that was the meaning behind the question.

Agreed with 1 & 2, which thru your extreme illustration, I ask DLT's can be
used to then rate the Validators???

Does that carry exportable value: aka, reputational systems, for
jurisdictions that are less structured (emerging markets)???



--

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 Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Arie raised a few questions on another thread which I don't want to get
> lost in the discussion. The first was the question, how do we vet "trust"
> of the connectors?
>
> Arie can correct me but I interpreted this as; how do connectors assert
> who they are and what credentials they have (such as licenses, if required)
> that users can use to decide if they wish to trust a connector?
>
> I think we can seperate this into two "tests" that the user must do:
> 1) Is the connector who they say they are?
> 2) Is the connector qualified to perform the transaction that is being
> requested?
>
> I think for both the user must establish some level of trust, either with
> the connector itself or with some entity that makes assertions about the
> connector.
>
> If, for example, the connector is a registered bank then user's will
> likely trust the fact that the bank is licensed and their funds are FDIC
> insured (in the US). They could verify that they are dealing with the
> actual bank's API using something like SSL certificates.
>
> If on the other hand if the connector is an independent organisation like
> a specialist market-maker then the user may decide to use a third-party
> verification service that under-writes or guarantees the connector.
>
> These are two extremes but it illustrates the point that ultimately user's
> (in determining the path for their payment) will make decisions about who
> to trust and that will depend on various factors like the value of the
> payment, the user's appetite for risk etc.
>
> In terms of standardisation, we should begin documenting these use cases
> and risk factors so we can figure out what data a connector should be
> sharing with users to allow them to make their trust decisions and do their
> path finding.
>
> Any thoughts on what that list might look like?
>
Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 17:36:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 October 2015 17:36:25 UTC