Re: Vetting connectors (was Interledger and Privacy)

Yes trust has to be related to the notaries in the atomic mode and not 
from the connectors. As I understand connectors are merely relaying  the 
informations to one trusted entity to another (sender ledger -> receiver 
ledger). But they can charge fees what is in some way a mean, that is 
normally performed through trusted entities. Nevertheless connectors 
will in reality often be highly trusted entities, but this trust is not 
grounded in the protocol but from other aspects eg. as kind of 
organisation they represent.

The first question that is important to me is how ledgers, connectors 
and notaries know from each other and from where they get the 
information of who is connected to whom? From my point of view we should 
have an idea about this matter before we are going to deep into others. 
ILP needs, as the internet does, a kind of name-service (DNS).
My opinion about that is using a distributed ledger among all the 
participants (ledgers, connectors, notaries) and using public keys as 
identity provider.

So far I would see that this ledger could contain the following 
information:
(speed and reputation are optional and need smart algorithm to work 
properly!)

*Items*

	

*Type*

	

*keys*

	

*IP/port*

	

*Remarks/name*

	

*speed*

	

*reputation*

	

*connections*

Sender ledger (A)

	

exchange

	

key-A

	

234.011.002.121:?

	


	


	


	

key-x

Recipient ledger (B)

	

exchange

	

key-B

	

034.211.102.141:?

	


	


	


	

key-z

Connector X

	

conn

	

key-x

	

123.011.042.211:?

	


	


	


	

key-A,..y

Connector Y

	

conn

	

key-y

	

241.011.302.116:?

	


	


	


	

key-x,..z

Connector Z

	

conn

	

key-z

	

189.111.002.121:?

	


	


	


	

key-y,..B

Notary N

	

notary

	

key-N

	

?

	

For escrowed transactions

	


	


	

Key-A,..x

Regulator

	

regulator

	

key-R

	

?

	

Optional if needed

	


	


	

key-z


note:
Using a distributed identity ledger would not mean that there is only 
one global ledger as such. Different types of ILP networks can or should 
use different identity ledgers.

*<http://moneygrid.net>*

**

Am 26.10.2015 um 21:56 schrieb Brian Walden:
> I second Yassin, could we clarify terms? I'm sorry, I'm new here and 
> may have missed some of the background conversation, but I thought the 
> whole point of ILP is to connect ledgers in such a way that the 
> connectors do not need to be trusted? Is the vocabulary slightly 
> different here than in the whitepaper? Does connector refer to any 
> ledgers traversed as a payment goes from sender to recipient?