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

Re: Ripple protocol changes for Interledger support

From: Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:34:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAB1OcyHJ2Vkt8Vg=cqwLNveEsnhasOOzUwBj3MWW3Ms-D2BKOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Roose <stevenroose@gmail.com>
Cc: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>

Thank you for your message.

I understand that the gateway is only involved during a withdraw, but that
is the point.

If you're conducting a transaction, you cannot be assured of the validity
until the withdrawal of funds is complete.

On Jan 28, 2016 2:30 PM, "Steven Roose" <stevenroose@gmail.com> wrote:

> Daniel. That is not true, non-XRP payments require no additonal trust in
> the gateway then when not making payments. All non-XRP payments happen
> within Ripple without involvement of the gateway. The gateway is only
> involved when withdrawing or depositing money out of or into Ripple.
> So with SusPay, the only additional trust in the gateway while a
> transactions is suspended is that the gateway will not lose the funds while
> the transaction is in suspension. That extra trust is actually negligible
> since that trust is automatically assumed while just owning the IOU
> currency, that's what the trust limits are for.
> So basically the only problem is that a user can possibly change its trust
> level while incoming or outgoing transactions are suspended. However, I
> don't think that should be so much of an issue. A user can now already
> change its trust limit to an amount lower than the amount of currency he
> owns. What that induced is that he can only spend the currency and no
> longer receive it.
> I would be interested in hearing what other additional complexities are
> involved here..
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Steven,
>> Non-XRP payments require trusting the gateway that is issuing the non-XRP
>> currency/commodity/security etc.
>> Does this fully answer your question? If not, please specify further.
>> Daniel
Received on Friday, 29 January 2016 08:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 January 2016 08:58:16 UTC