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

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

From: Dimitri De Jonghe <dimi@ascribe.io>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:00:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CADkP8CqMY944w+Y0Ucw=_pwvg3wskYg_txiJU0fgPPaUzsV9kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Makes sense, good to know

Op wo 2 mrt. 2016 om 15:11 schreef Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>:

> 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 15:01:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 15:01:10 UTC