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

Re: A Survey of ILP Account Identifiers?

From: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:53:07 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFwScO-V-f04zU_7e3phcdYh+4gN1+zJ08PAJLptPSF4iY1ZOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, David Fuelling <dfuelling@sappenin.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11 December 2016 at 02:06, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, my current thoughts on this are to use SHA1 hashes for
>> everything. Following attempting to allow various sorts of identities
>> with "identity strings," normalizing on hashes of some constant
>> followed by the identifying string gives an interchangable 160-bit
>> token that can be used without worrying about what it represents until
>> you care.
>
>
> In what context do you want to use SHA1 hashes?

Mainline DHT cloud storage.

> Is there a path to interoperability?

Thanks to the interledger protocol project, ABSOLUTELY.




-- 
"Teaching radical novelties is our main safeguard against
dictatorships" -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2016 05:53:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 11 December 2016 05:53:41 UTC