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

Re: Composable Conditions

From: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:30:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+nC-XuniAmizwFHf1VgWqV8-eOacyjvamJdgUg94LjZsKHjTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
Cc: Rafael Pereira <rafael@rippex.net>, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
+1 on "Smart Conditions"

There's a fair amount of blockchain talk about "Smart Contracts". A key,
simple use case for such contracts, I suspect, is "payment against
delivery". It seems to me that this work could map well onto support of
such a scenario.
On May 20, 2016 1:21 PM, "Jehan Tremback" <jehan.tremback@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a similar concept in UPC- "smart conditions" (which is what got me
interested in this standard in the first place). My smart conditions are
some executable code that returns not a boolean, but a number between 0 and
1. This is used for unlocking only part of some funds. Wondering if this is
something you have thought about in this new iteration?


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks good to me too.
> On May 18, 2016 6:53 PM, "Rafael Pereira" <rafael@rippex.net> wrote:
>> 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 Friday, 20 May 2016 20:31:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:13:57 UTC