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

Re: Composable Conditions

From: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:48:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABG_PfTMHSXU9sKOJ+bL3mgy7k3QftZ-yO38rWyd62-Y0kL-5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Cc: Rafael Pereira <rafael@rippex.net>, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Roger, I'm not suggesting it as a new name for the crypto-conditions
protocol, just wondering if people have thought of returning a fraction
instead of a boolean.

Here's the paper it's from:

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:

> +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?
> -Jehan
> 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:
>>> 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 Friday, 20 May 2016 20:49:04 UTC

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