- From: Xavier Vas <xavier@tr80.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:38:23 +0000
- To: public-interledger@w3.org
- Message-ID: <568FADB7.2080707@tr80.com>
Hi, It seems a lot like circuits and accumulators in the Digital Silk Road <http://www.cap-lore.com/Agorics/Library/dsr.html>. The escrow element has been explored in Bitcoin sidechains <http://gendal.me/2014/10/26/a-simple-explanation-of-bitcoin-sidechains/>, too. The escrow amount is an issue there as it's needed once for each pair of peers and only facilitates recurring back & forth payments between given peers that mostly cancel each other out. Xav On 01/04/2016 06:36 AM, Jehan Tremback wrote: > Hi, I recently presented my protocol, Universal Payment Channels, at > CCC. Afterwards, I met Evan Schwartz, who mentioned this group. > > UPC is a lot like Interledger, except that ledgers hold money in > escrow for an unlimited number of payments, instead of just one. > > The main effect of this is that ledgers are not involved in individual > payments. This has a large effect on scalability because a potentially > infinite number of payments can be exchanged between two connectors > without any involvement of a bank, or any data saved to a blockchain. > In this way it is similar to the bitcoin lightning network proposal. > > Also, individual payments can very fast, due to the non-involvement of > the ledgers. No confirmation time or bank systems to process > individual payments. > > Here's the paper if you're > interested: http://altheamesh.com/documents/universal-payment-channels.pdf > > I'm also working on a routing protocol for this, which could probably > be used with Interledger (or even Lightning) as well. It's based on > AODV, and preserves complete anonymity of sender and receiver at the > cost of somewhat-high network traffic. It was part of the above paper > that some of you may have seen but I've removed it from the current > draft. I'll post more about it later if anyone is interested. > > -Jehan
Received on Friday, 8 January 2016 12:38:24 UTC