Re: Atomic cross-chain trading

Basically, when looking at stuff from the Bitcoin world, keep in mind that
most of it has to work in a certain way due to limitations in how Bitcoin
works (like the complicated flow posted by Melvin above). That's why stuff
in Interledger (and other systems that are not Bitcoin) may look different
and simpler. A few years ago, a lot of coins were coming out that basically
just forked Bitcoin (Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc.). So it may have seemed at
the time that certain limitations were built into electronic money in
general, but it was really just the Bitcoin codebase.

-Jehan

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:

> As Evan mentioned, what the Bitcoin wiki lays out here is one way to do
> Interledger transfers on Bitcoin. Interledger does not make any
> prescriptions as to how escrow is implemented on each ledger. Some ledgers,
> like Bitcoin, may support escrow natively, others may require a third-party
> escrow service.
>
> The way we would look at it is that ledgers compete over having better
> Interledger integration, so a way to do escrow without a third party would
> be competitive advantage for that ledger.
>
> For more information on what features ledgers would ideally have, please
> see:
>
> https://github.com/interledger/specs/blob/gh-pages/0001-interledger-architecture.md#ledger-layer-1
> (This link may break as we reorganize the specs repo. Apologies in
> advance.)
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:40 PM, 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
>>
>
>