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

Re: Blockchains and interledger (left-over question from the workshop)

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:00:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+_8=-X=y4kA1oLQ6zdDJj4+XWZfK2=2xywmeNegyyCTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
Cc: Bob Way <bob@ripple.com>, Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 2 March 2016 at 05:13, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:

> > How many confirmations are needed for inter ledger transfers between
> two block chains?
>
> Same as any other Bitcoin transaction. There are technically two
> transactions that happen, but the second one is not in the critical path.
> (In the execution phase, all transfers can execute simultaneously.)
>

But one block chain is bitcoin, for which confirmations are protected by a
lot of hashing.  The other block chain could be (and almost certainly will
be) far less robust in terms of hashing.  So how many confirms on the
second chain?  I admit I dont know the fine details here, but If we stick
to two for both chains, then you could trigger a transfer in one ledger,
then do a double spend in the easier ledger, leading to a need for a
reversed transaction.  Have I missed something?


>
> With payment channels it should be possible to reduce the number of
> Bitcoin transactions between two connectors and make the process instant.
> This could be based on the Lightning network concept. It would still
> require some work to actually spec out how that would work in practice.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2 March 2016 at 00:21, Bob Way <bob@ripple.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’ll add that a blockchain base ledger can serve easily serve in the
>>> role of an ILP ledger. All that is needed is to implement the ILP escrowed
>>> transfer mechanism.
>>>
>>> I see that a key role of the Interledger Protocol will become connecting
>>> blockchain based asset management ledgers (stocks, bonds, commodities,
>>> cryptocurrencies) together, and also to connect them to existing
>>> non-blockchain based ledgers (banks, payment networks).
>>>
>>
>> How many confirmations are needed for inter ledger transfers between two
>> block chains?
>>
>> If I've understood block chains correctly, you can never be certain one
>> chain is the longest
>>
>> How does ILP get around this?
>>
>>
>>> Bob Way
>>>
>>> Integration Architect | Ripple
>>> bob@ripple.com <ben@ripple.com> | ripple.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you see blockchain as a competing technology? If so, how does the
>>>> value proposition for interledger stack up against that for the blockchain?
>>>
>>>
>>> ILP is a protocol for transferring value securely across centralized and
>>> decentralized ledgers / blockchains. Interledger and blockchains operate at
>>> different levels: blockchains are databases, whereas interledger is an
>>> approach for connecting different databases. (I would argue that a number
>>> of the value propositions attributed to blockchains have been overstated
>>> beyond what they're actually good at, and many of them could be achieved in
>>> more efficient ways. But's that's a longer discussion)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
>>> [image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 06:00:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 06:01:00 UTC