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

LedgerLoops

From: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 16:54:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+aD3u3b3yqP4GTqL2JfVqHFJbGLQpWHwNcZw7yXWnJLSNLB2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-interledger@w3.org
Hi,

Some people on this list might enjoy reading about LedgerLoops:

   https://ledgerloops.com

It's a ledger federation protocol that (like Interledger) uses conditional
transactions which are only fulfilled when a certain cryptographic
challenge is solved.

I developed the current version of the LedgerLoops whitepaper in October,
and it was actually Melvin who discovered its similarities with
Interledger. So I'm very happy to have found a community of people who also
believe in ledger federation through conditional transactions! :)

Unlike Interledger (as far as I understand), LedgerLoops does not require
intermediaries to see the destination address of a transaction, which
potentially enables a higher level of privacy.

LedgerLoops also goes a step further than Interledger in that it attempts
to create an internet of value where cyclical trade currents ("loops") are
not broken down into a counter-current of monetary tokens, but the entire
value flow loop is actioned using just a crypto-trigger, and no
counter-current of monetary tokens. In that sense, LedgerLoops is an
alternative to money altogether.

I hope you enjoy reading about it! Reactions and comments very welcome. :)

Now that I've found out about Interledger, I'll review the LedgerLoops
protocol to see where I can make it more compatible with parts of
Interledger; particularly the format of "condition" and "fulfillment"
strings can be made identical with the format proposed in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomas-crypto-conditions-01, but there
may be more points on which the two systems can align.


Cheers!
Michiel.
Received on Friday, 30 December 2016 15:55:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 30 December 2016 15:55:12 UTC