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

Re: Private 'Distributed Ledgers' Miss the Point of a Blockchain

From: Frédéric Meignien <frederic.meignien@cantonconsulting.fr>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:04:43 +0100
To: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>, Jae Kwon <jae@tendermint.com>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Message-ID: <563289EB.2060003@cantonconsulting.fr>
I join the discussion because I think it's a very good idea to add 
statuses to the ledger.
Saying that the ledger is written is not enough, it sounds better to 
have a status saying "allowed" to make it clear that the transaction was 
authorized by Bank-A (since, of course, the transaction has to be 
allowed at the very start of the process).

some more question: how a transaction is traced all along its path 
through the connectors and ledgers ? A unique ID ?



Le 29/10/2015 19:01, David Nicol a écrit :
> On the other hand, complaining that some proposed inter-ledger 
> communications protocol fails to address the issues that some 
> particularly complicated ledger system effectively addresses may miss 
> the point of talking about inter-ledger communications protocols.
> Blockchain provides completely replicated distributed ledger data at 
> high energy cost.
> Bitcoin Blockchain is a ledger. Collected journal entries are written 
> into it about every ten minutes. The service of writing journal 
> entries to the ledger is continuously auctioned.
> Operations at the ledger level include:
>     ways to insert new journal entries
>     ways to reject/allow/accept journal entries
>     ways to query ledger state
>     purging policy
> I just came up with "allow/accept" to differentiate between temporary 
> and settled states of a journal entry. An "allowed" entry would be 
> like a credit card hold, an "accepted" entry would be like a 
> transaction that has been written into the blockchain and verified. 
> There may be better choices for those words.
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 21:05:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 21:05:27 UTC