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

Re: Crypto-condition Spec and Status

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:47:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+35hxpMaW247rtx=AEnzyfyqLvG4+pF-44B1oAonNvkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 1 March 2016 at 23:43, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Not at this point, no.  I'll be able to give a more detailed opinion after
implementation.  I think after you solve a problem in a few different ways
it's easier to give an analysis of the tradeoffs.

> --
> Tony Arcieri
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 22:48:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 22:48:09 UTC