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

Re: Composable Conditions

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:32:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KCX_NNxoC9XePsbob7RiNUa2SW-MNqjs4RHMeYvQfisA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "zaki@manian.org" <zaki@manian.org>
Cc: Rafael Pereira <rafael@rippex.net>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
I am +1 for keeping the word "conditions"
I am not that keen on dropping the "crypto" part of it though

Do we really need to change the name?
Maybe I'm being sentimental but I have grown attached to it :)

On 19 May 2016 at 11:13, zaki@manian.org <zaki@manian.org> wrote:

> I disagree with statement that hashlocks aren't really signatures. See
> Lamport signatures, xmss.
>
> So I think it's fully proper to calm this a signature system.
>
> I do find myself using the words condition and signature somewhat
> interchangeably when talking about this kind of thing.
> On May 19, 2016 3:53 AM, "Rafael Pereira" <rafael@rippex.net> wrote:
>
>> LGTM
>>
>> Em qua, 18 de mai de 2016 às 20:20, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
>> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> During one of the recent community group calls we promised that we would
>>> work on a better nomenclature for crypto-conditions.
>>>
>>> The main criticism we heard was that it seemed like it was called
>>> crypto-conditions based on a very narrow use case (triggering events based
>>> on signatures) in five-bells-ledger and that using them for multi-sig was
>>> going to be a more common use case.
>>>
>>> However, one person also commented that hashlocks aren't really
>>> signatures. (We've called them zero-bit signatures before, but that's like
>>> calling a road a "zero-river bridge".)
>>>
>>> I've discussed the terminology with Evan and here is what we propose:
>>>
>>> Composable Conditions are a standard for cryptographic one-way functions
>>> and ways to compose them.
>>>
>>> The idea here is that "condition" is actually broader than "signature".
>>> A signature verification algorithm is a function which returns a boolean:
>>> valid/invalid. A hashlock is also a function which returns a boolean:
>>> valid/invalid. In the future we may add a scriptable condition, but it
>>> would still return true or false. The general term for a thing that returns
>>> true or false is a "condition".
>>>
>>> Once you think about the idea of a "condition", you can also understand
>>> the use cases for this standard. Conditions can be triggers for events, but
>>> they can also be used for authentication ("accept any command that meets
>>> this condition".)
>>>
>>> The term "condition" also neatly expresses what we think is not in
>>> scope: Our spec specifically does not allow you to perform computation
>>> (returning values other than true or false.)
>>>
>>> Aside from the fact that it abstracts the condition type, the other
>>> significant feature of the standard is that it provides condition types
>>> which are a composition of other conditions.
>>>
>>> That's why we propose "Composable Conditions" as the new name. Please
>>> let us know your feedback in this thread!
>>>
>>> - Stefan
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Obrigado,
>> Rafael
>>
>> *Rafael Olaio - CEO*
>> tel +55 11 2337.2225
>> cel +55 11 99522.7572
>> rippex.net
>>
>> Esta mensagem pode conter informação confidencial e/ou privilegiada. Se
>> você não for o destinatário ou a pessoa autorizada a receber esta mensagem,
>> não poderá usar, copiar ou divulgar as informações nela contidas ou tomar
>> qualquer ação baseada nessas informações. Se você recebeu esta mensagem por
>> engano, por favor avise imediatamente o remetente, respondendo o e-mail
>> e em seguida apague-o.This message may contain confidential and/or
>> privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to
>> receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take
>> any action based on this message or any information here in. If you have
>> received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by
>> reply e-mail and delete this message.
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 09:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 May 2016 09:33:28 UTC