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

Re: Crypto-condition Spec and Status

From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:43:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHOTMVJkfpwAyqxvZ_6WXTwT8qoYBp=6YkjFAL5N9rqFtQB0Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Much also depends on your trust profile, ILP looks like a good solution in
> zero trust environments, but perhaps overkill in some high trust
> environments.
>

I look at ILP this way:

- Atomic Mode is for high trust environments, i.e. moving millions of
dollars per transaction (As I actually work in environments that demand
this, I personally find Atomic Mode more interesting)
- Universal Mode is for scenarios which are "high trust" (you seem to be
advocating what I call the "cadbury cream egg" philosophy of security: a
tough exterior and a gooey cream center, an approach I am philosophically
opposed to, but I digress)

Do you have specific complaints about why you think Universal Mode is
overkill?

-- 
Tony Arcieri
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 22:44:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 22:44:43 UTC