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

Re: Will ILP go live on October 1?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:24:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLo56VfSo8T4XjcGNyZD3_PtrjGiRppZ7SUEP_AF1e=WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
Cc: Christopher Bartley <morelazers@gmail.com>, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>, win than aung <winthan@chomeaye.com>, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 19 September 2016 at 13:04, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I don't have any details to share on Ripple's commercial
> deals. What I can say is that all of our solutions are going to be
> ILP-capable, because we believe that ILP has by far the best chance chance
> of being the protocol that powers the Internet of Value. It is also the
> simplest which tends to be a big factor in standards adoption. We're not
> opposed to supporting other protocols in addition to ILP if there is demand
> from our customers.
>

Agree with most of this, however im not convinced that ILP is the simplest
protocol.  Webcredits is IMHO simpler. I do however like the move to
modularize it into more simple pieces.  But it might come across better if
if you continued your narrative along the lines of "we believe that ... "

I have slight reservations about the scalability of ILP (e.g. can you send
to and from an email address, a mobile phone, a web page, an IM account,
irc etc.).  What I really love about it is the concept of connectors.  As
you point out much more will be clear when real ILP payments are live,
which Im confident is an achievable goal.


>
> Speaking of adoption - our next goal is to build all the tools needed for
> a real-world internetwork involving the most popular crypto-currencies.
> Seeing is believing - we want as many people as possible to experience real
> ILP payments. The initial intended use case will be micro-payments. There
> is also still a lot of work to be done on the reference implementation and
> on porting ILP to other languages.
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Christopher Bartley <morelazers@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Sorry to chime in out of place but I think that this post by a Ripple
>> employee may help to clarify (http://www.xrpchat.com/topic/
>> 1991-a-big-update/?do=findComment&comment=18189) My understanding is
>> that ILP among the banks is not RCL-enabled and serves as an internal
>> subledger for each bank to escrow funds prior to transfer. Because the
>> transactions are not submitted to RCL they are private and do not appear on
>> the public ledger. My understanding is that the publicly announced banks
>> are already using it to transfer fiat or will be will be very soon.
>> Deploying ILP privately will allow them to integrate with other private
>> networks or public ledgers should they chose, but for now it's effectively
>> a private and permissioned ledger using ILP within network.
>>
>> I'd still appreciate a response from Stephan and Adrian, especially if
>> I'm way off here.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Sent from Das Fone
>>
>> On Sep 16, 2016 10:01 AM, "Roger Bass" <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan or Adrian:
>>>
>>> are you able to say publicly which banks will be moving transactions
>>> over ILP come October 1?
>>>
>>> Presumably, this means that a version of Ripple Connect with ILP as a
>>> "protocol switch" is already shipped and deployed to those banks, right?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for this clarification Stefan.
>>>>
>>>> Is this information published on the Ripple website and/or Ripple wiki?
>>>> If not, may I ask why not?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 15, 2016 7:05 PM, "Stefan Thomas" <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What the article is referring to is that Ripple's bank customers will
>>>>> be moving real money through ILP-powered Ripple products starting Oct 1st.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that we were developing ILP internally for some time before we
>>>>> decided that it should become open standard and released the white paper.
>>>>> For now the commercial implementation of ILP inside of Ripple products and
>>>>> the open-source work happening in this group are pretty separate. We're
>>>>> getting really good ideas and feedback from the banks using ILP and that
>>>>> feeds back into the community group work. And of course the end goal is to
>>>>> have it all interconnect some day.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'll take quite some time (and a lot of community traction) before
>>>>> the banks would even consider connecting to a public Interledger. Hence the
>>>>> importance of the work this group is doing that's unrelated to Ripple. For
>>>>> it to be a true standard there has to be lots of activity around it that
>>>>> isn't directly tied to us or our customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:22 PM, win than aung <winthan@chomeaye.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just saw this news - http://www.afr.com/technolog
>>>>>> y/nab-westpac-part-of-ripples-new-global-payments-network-20
>>>>>> 160915-grgz81
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ripple has created Ripple Connect, new technology to allow banks to
>>>>>>> talk to each other, and is developing its "interledger protocol", which
>>>>>>> will go live on October 1 and provide the foundation for banks to directly
>>>>>>> connect their ledgers with each other without an intermediary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that ready to go live on Oct 1? Which ledgers are going to try out
>>>>>> at live on Oct 1? Gatehub? any hints?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Winthan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 11:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 September 2016 11:25:14 UTC