W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > February 2017

Re: FYI: Lightning will work across ledgers

From: Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:57:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CANnD4AhxcDWDU+ANKwU4o2iuN_E8Ga0_xGTOL=CQy=A_JX_3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
Cc: Ryan Fugger <arv@ryanfugger.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>

> All channel implementations are dealing with a similar concept, and just
> do it in different ways to work on different platforms and have different
> capabilities. One of the main things that sets Lightning apart is that the
> code is very complex, to accommodate the limitations of Bitcoin script.
> Sure, you *could* use various layers and adapters to make it work, but
> would you want to? I'm guessing most people will want to use something that
> is tailored to their use-case and easy to build upon.

Yes, +1 this. While it's great that Lightning can work across ledgers, the
one problem you claim as unsolved (exchange rates) is already solved by
Interledger, and Interledger provides a substantially simpler and much more
general, *layered* implementation strategy.

I really wish the Lightning Network folks would consider isolating and
compartmentalizing some of their ideas into a more general system, and have
talked with a few of them in person about this, but until they do to me at
least it really doesn't seem more interesting than Interledger, just a lot
more highly-coupled and intrinsically complicated.
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 03:58:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:14:00 UTC