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