- From: Dimitri De Jonghe <dimi@bigchaindb.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:01:09 +0200
- To: David Fuelling <dfuelling@sappenin.com>
- Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADkP8Cq8XPUusmBzVA9_Gug6N1MfjWX+PZ5pp3KbAw2eJ78xqA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David, Sorry if this has been answered already, but can anyone clarify if ILP is > intended to be used for non-currency assets transfers (assuming a fungible > non-currency asset)? > > Great question. ILP is meant to support fungible assets indeed. At BigchainDB, we think of supply chains, shares, tickets, IP, licenses, and so on. In fact, we have a little share trading demo <https://github.com/bigchaindb/bigchaindb-examples#example-share-trader> that we would like to port into an ILP setup. > > However, it's not clear to me how will the ILP connector "fee system" > would work in a case like this. For example, imagine I want to transfer 10 > shares of stock from one brokerage account to another. I think I can wrap > my mind around how to model that in ILP, but how does the connector > "charge" for its services? It seems impractical to take a percentage of > shares off of my transfer. Instead, a connector would want to additionally > transfer some sort of currency to itself as part of the transaction to > "pay" for the connector usage. > Indeed, this has been on our minds also. I think there are few possible scenarios, and I can imagine our community to come up with even better ones. In general, one would like to see a payment receipt for the charges in order to transfer the shares. Hence the traders would need to connect - besides their shares ledger - to an ILP compatible payment ledger. The payment ledger would then create an ILP fulfillment URI to fulfill the shares transfers that are in escrow. It's still a bit vague but it would be truly cool if we can spin up a demo for this. (Actually I would be interested in doing so on the ILP hackaton 6/july in London). I can imagine many more use cases that would follow such a pattern This is only one stream of thoughts. I am sure others might be more in detail/efficient > > My read of ILP is that each transaction can only involve one "type" of > asset (whereas this would involve 2 types - the stock, and some currency as > a commission). > > Actually, we advocate that a ledger should only contain one type of assets. But ILP allows to connect homogeneous ledgers of various asset types, given there are suitable connectors/exchanges. The latter will be an interesting topic for ILP. Moreover, it would be interesting if there would be a formal registry of asset types. Definitely a good question worth asking! Have a nice weekend, Dimi Dimitri De Jonghe, PhD Developer +49 157 5946 2122 | Twitter <https://twitter.com/DimitriDeJonghe> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dimitridejonghe> | GitHub <https://github.com/diminator> | S <https://facebook.com/>kype: dimi.dejonghe [image: Logo] <https://www.bigchaindb.com/> BigchainDB GmbH Wichertstr. 14a, 10439 Berlin | Managing Director: Bruce Pon | Registered in Berlin HRB 160856B |info@bigchaindb.com | www.bigchaindb.com
Received on Friday, 17 June 2016 19:05:23 UTC