W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Atomic cross-chain trading

From: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:08:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAONA2jXmxrbGBrkt6rEcjomEm=qDJwQEvwt-S2VvZwH_fYT1iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Wall <eric.wall.770@gmail.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
If I'm not mistaken, the ledger-provided escrow used in Interledger is
functionally equivalent to the method described for atomic cross-chain
trading. I believe the only difference is whether you represent the
transfer and its refund in one transfer or two.

In atomic cross-chain trading, you have two transfers per ledger or
blockchain: one transfer that sends the assets "forward" and the other that
is a refund, only valid some time later. In the interledger model, we
describe transfers being escrowed until either the condition (which may be
the same type of hashlock condition) is fulfilled, in which case the funds
are transferred "forward", or a timeout is reached, in which case the funds
are returned automatically.

It's important to note that the escrow in Interledger is not a separate
service but functionality built into the ledger itself.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Eric Wall <eric.wall.770@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello!
> I was wondering why the example in
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains
> would not be a better solution than an escrow service as proposed by
> Interledger for cross-chain transfers. Any feedback appreciated.
> Regards,
> Eric Wall
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/ercwl

Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
[image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 08:09:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 19 April 2016 08:09:44 UTC