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

Re: Indisputable audit trails (left-over question from the workshop)

From: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:11:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAONA2jUbRwO1XHLjf3fKG4wUzHuwyvAySL52oOiw2-eaW1Z2Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitri De Jonghe <dimi@ascribe.io>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Yup, exactly. In most of the flows we have sketched out the condition is
based at least in part on a signature or secret coming from the recipient.
This must be exchanged or known prior to the preparation of the ILP payment
(e.g. if you're on a merchant's website it could be exchanged via a browser
API like the W3C Web Payments one).

There are some cases when it might make sense for the condition to depend
on the sender instead. Also, in atomic mode the condition includes the
notaries' signatures as well. In any case though, the details of the
condition must be agreed upon before any money is escrowed.
On Mar 2, 2016 8:50 AM, "Dimitri De Jonghe" <dimi@ascribe.io> wrote:

> Hi Evan,
>
> "Ledgers and connectors may require knowing the full path of a payment
> before agreeing to participate, in which case they could also keep a
> history of all the paths they have been part of."
>
> Does this imply that the sender/receiver upfront decide/know how the
> signature on the receipt should look like (eg. the receiver exposes his
> public key on his ledger to the sender?)
>
> Best,
>
> Dimi
>
> Op di 1 mrt. 2016 om 20:43 schreef Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>:
>
>> How can you provide an audit trial which is indisputable?
>>>
>>
>> From the sender's perspective, the key piece of indisputable proof needed
>> is the recipient's signature on the receipt. If the sender has that, their
>> obligation to the recipient has been discharged and they need no further
>> trail to prove that they have paid. For other participants, I would expect
>> ledgers to keep a history of their transfers. Ledgers and connectors may
>> require knowing the full path of a payment before agreeing to participate,
>> in which case they could also keep a history of all the paths they have
>> been part of. This brings up the privacy vs transparency debate though, so
>> I would guess that the full path will be disclosed primarily for higher
>> value payments.
>>
>> --
>> Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
>> [image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 14:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 14:12:16 UTC