- From: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:28:53 -0800
- To: Xavier Vas <xavier@tr80.com>
- Cc: public-interledger@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABG_PfRmAR=Txmwqgd38jD7xGP2EF_m3VxSR6DY=ekg5trZ8UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Xavier- In reference to sidechains, one could think of a channel as being like a sidechain following this simple consensus protocol: "Every transaction must be signed by both parties". You could have other ways of deciding to consider a transaction valid, and as long as the bank or blockchain backing the channel used these methods, it would work. For instance: "Every transaction must be signed by 90% of parties" Or: "Every transaction must be signed by a validator chosen from among the channel participants by this round-robin protocol" Multi-participant channels didn't seem to present any advantages in my use-case, so I didn't think about them much. I think there are actually other projects that add more participants to a channel, but I've forgotten which. I'm sure that there's interesting work that can be done here. On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com> wrote: > Stefan- UPC basically allows connectors to exchange notes that can prove > to a ledger that they are entitled to collect a certain amount of money > from one another. These notes can be exchanged between connectors without > the ledger being involved. The only data that must be saved by the > connector is the last valid note. > > I think that one could also build this type of functionality into ILP, as > long as there is some way for connectors to exchange notes that prove that > they are entitled to a certain payment. In UPC, this hinges on a "hold > period" during which one node can prove the other is cheating. > > I think it's easiest to view ILP in the context of UPC- ILP is like a form > of UPC where a new channel is opened for each transaction. Adding UPC-like > scalability into ILP then becomes an exercise in determining how to avoid > opening a new channel while maintaining security. It sounds like you guys > are well on the way to doing that. > > Xavier- Interesting to read about the Digital Silk Road. I've run across > it before, but have not been able to find much concrete protocol work. It > sounds like they are talking about some combination of a payment channel > system, and source routing (the entire route of a packet is sent with that > packet). Althea (the incentivized mesh project that UPC is a part of) has > similar goals, but is able to draw upon 20 years of technological advances > in distributed routing and digital currencies. > > -Jehan >
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 21:29:23 UTC