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