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

Re: Blockchain, block size and interledger (was: How do bank payments actually work?)

From: Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:52:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFpK0Q1d6txyYcaJmQ76-okmmibcJzDBXnvpSpu3CTxxA5LRow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carol Benson <carol@glenbrook.com>
Cc: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>, Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
> need to have agreed on the business rules that govern the transaction

You're totally right Carol, I should clarify my position:

What ILP is concerned with are the raw ledger updates. We assume that there
is already a known sender, a known receipient, a known amount and everyone
involved has agreed to participate in this transaction. We're not trying to
suggest that raw ILP by itself is suitable as a consumer payment solution
any more than raw TCP would be an alternative to the entire protocol stack
of the Web. It's merely intended as a first layer.

However, I think that because of all the reasons outlined in my previous
mail it is a better first layer than the other option of building the whole
stack on a single ledger.

I would talk more about what the other layers could look like, but I'll
save that for another thread to avoid going off-topic in this one.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Carol Benson <carol@glenbrook.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:
>
>> In order to transact via ILP all we have to agree on is a cryptographic
>> primitive (like SHA-2) and basic escrow semantics (proposed, prepared,
>> executed, rejected).
>
>
> ​Stefan - I agree with most of what you say.  But you say "in order to
> transact via ILP all we have to agree on is a cryptographic primitive (like
> SHA-2) and basic escrow semantics (proposed, prepared, executed,
> rejected)." I think this misses the point that the two parties (one using
> Ledger 1, one using Ledger 2) need to have agreed on the business rules
> that govern the transaction - at least that is the conventional payments
> systems view.  And that (the business rules agreement) is very, very
> complicated to do, especially if questions of transaction liability are
> involved.  I suppose a world of "no business rules needed" could emerge.
> I'm fond of using the email analogy - I receive an email, I haven't had any
> business agreement with the sender of the email.  But money may be
> different....​
>
> ​Carol​
>
>
> --
> *Carol Coye Benson*
> *541.301.0139 <541.301.0139>*
> *Skype: carolcoyebenson*
>
> *Glenbrook Partners <http://www.glenbrook.com>*
> *Payments News <http://www.paymentsnews.com>*
> *Payments Boot Camps <http://www.glenbrook.com/education-program/>*
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 15:52:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 January 2016 15:52:57 UTC