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

Re: ILP and signatures

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+9zX0zoLtPn7LOaYzTjuwNLT3RnpfW282KGRN1SrGN-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 26 January 2016 at 19:27, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:

> If you want escrow, the funds' release has to be triggered somehow.
> Cryptography (hashes or signatures both work) is very convenient for this,
> but you can in principle use any trusted signal, like a wire with physical
> security.
>
> As far as making ILP a standard I think we'd want to use common
> cryptographic primitives.
>
One more question (apologies if this is a obvious).  In the scenario where
there is one connector.  Are connector and the escrow agent different?


> On Jan 26, 2016 9:03 AM, "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cryptographic signatures are a simple way for ledgers to securely
>> validate the outcome of the external conditions upon which a transfer is
>> escrowed. Any one-way function can be used [18]. Using asymmetric
>> cryptography, the ledger escrows funds pending the presentation of a valid
>> signature for a pre-defined public key and message or hash. The ledger can
>> then easily validate the signature when it is presented and determine if
>> the condition has been met.
>>
>> http://interledger.org/interledger.pdf
>>
>> Question: are signatures a necessary component in the ledgers?
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 19:42:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 January 2016 19:42:12 UTC