Re: settle.network

(Jumping on on this thread)

Hi! I'm the author of Settle[0]. Happy to answer any question and hear
feedback about the project obviously!

Additionally, wanted to thank you for posting this here sine it gave
me a chance to learn more about interledger!

I had a few questions myself on the project. After reading the
whitepaper[1] as  well as the ilp-kit wiki[2] (as pointed by Ryan
Fugger), I was wondering how the interledger allows multi-hop
transactions through "untrusted" parties (at least untrusted by the
recipient or the sender) without any notion of trust baked in the
protocol?

On this, the paper states:

> In the following, we assume that a path has already been
> chosen and the exchange rates and any fees quoted by
> the connectors in C are known.

Which seems to be like a crucial phase of any multi-hop payments?

Additionally, what I intended to demonstrate with Settle is that if
trust is expressed in the network, you can provide atomic safe
multi-hop transactions without the need for a consensus algorithm if
you accept that any actor can loose up to the amount of trust he has
in a faulting actor (which feels, at least personally, an extremely
reasonable constraint). That protocol also relies on an hash lock
escrow / 2 phase commit mechanism, but does not require notaries which
I think is pretty nice.

I'd love to hear more about the interledger approach on this.

More generally, I find the interledger approach --providing a standard
API for ledgers to participate in a global payment network instead of
mandating a "ledger format"-- extremely interesting (In settle one
could syncrhonize the state of a mint with the state of a local ledger
to achieve this, but that's somewhat clumsier). Would love to explore
how concepts of Settle could help here and happy to get involved as
needed if that makes any sense.

-stan

[0] https://settle.network
[1] https://interledger.org/interledger.pdf
[2] https://github.com/interledgerjs/ilp-kit/wiki

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 01:12:12 UTC