Re: Will ILP go live on October 1?

Totally understandable to get confused by the names of these projects.

   - Hyperledger is an attempt to build an industry-standard blockchain
   implementation
   - Interledger is a protocol for payments across different types of
   ledgers and blockchains (it is not a blockchain or ledger implementation
   itself)
   - Uberledger is new and doesn't have much in the way of details but it
   sounds like it's trying to be a "meta-blockchain layer" that uses the same
   fundamentals as Bitcoin. Interledger is specifically not trying to unify
   how ledgers work but to provide a minimal address and packet format for
   routing payments through very different ledgers.

Hope that helps,
Evan

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Karen Slawinsky <
karen.slawinsky@teambesure.com> wrote:

> As a casual observer of ILP (and not a developer), can someone explain to
> me the difference between ILP, Uberledger (http://uberledger.io/
> <http://uberledger..io/>) and Hyperledger (https://www.hyperledger.org/)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Yassin Mobarak <ymobarak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also interested to know whether or not Ripple Consensus Ledger (RCL)
> and XRP will have any role in the transaction journey through ILP. If so,
> will we be able to notice that traffic in Ripple Charts through an increase
> in transaction volume or liquidity?
>
> Thanks,
> Yassin M.
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:58 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
>>> <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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


-- 
Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
[image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com>

Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 15:38:00 UTC