- From: Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:41:29 -0800
- To: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 19:42:04 UTC
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com> wrote: > The first split is probably the biggest, and that's whether you build > internetworking into blockchains/ledgers or build a separate component to > handle internetworking. In approaches like Cosmos > <https://cosmos.network/whitepaper> / Polkadot <http://polkadot.io/>, > blockchains must be specifically designed to be part of those systems and > must be aware of or subservient to one or more other blockchains. This > could allow a deeper type of integration, but comes with a complexity > tradeoff. With Lightning / Interledger, internetworking is handled by a > separate component (Lightning nodes or Interledger Connectors). This is > simpler and can incorporate a wider variety of ledgers, but is primarily > useful for trading assets of value across ledgers. Interledger also uses an > abstraction over the functionality expected from the ledger layer (instead > of building simpler ledgers to imitate blockchains) and tries to minimize > the functionality required from the ledger layer. > I've often tried to make analogies to OSI layer 2 vs layer 3 when describing systems like Cosmos or Polkadot versus Interledger. They seem somewhat orthogonal in that you could layer Interledger atop Cosmos/Polkadot.
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 19:42:04 UTC