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

Re: FYI: Lightning will work across ledgers

From: Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:45:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpnrMSX+GTk+zcwkosu8RwJoC-acUDxv7YdXidYS_bdDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-interledger@w3.org
> One of the main things that sets Lightning apart is that the code is very complex, to accommodate the limitations of Bitcoin script.

I disagree. I think that if the code is more complex, it is because it
provides better security and privacy.

> the one problem you claim as unsolved (exchange rates) is already solved by Interledger

The exchange rates are not a problem to solve, it's just the way you
would connect payment channels using different currencies.

> 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.

I'm sure they would be happy to listen to concrete suggestions in this
reward. On the other hand, I don't think they could do much with this
vague statement by itself.

>  6. Prefunded vs Postfunded Channels
>      - Prefunded - as far as I know, Lightning requires all channels to be
>      prefunded. This means there is less risk but it's also more expensive to
>      tie up capital for this purpose
>      - Postfunded - credit or "trustlines" are cheaper because they do not
>      require capital but they do come with counterparty risk. May be more
>      appropriate in circumstances where the participants have a closer
>      relationship
>      - *Both *- Interledger abstracts away the difference between bond-
>     and credit-based bilateral relationships, letting users and connectors
>      choose which one makes the most sense for their use case, trust
> model, and
>      level of risk tolerance

Assets in lightning could represent credit as well, for example, in a
chain that supports asset issuance (the elements project will support
multiple assets in one chain soon, hiding the asset ids using a
similar technique to Confidential Transactions).

Also note that lightning can also be compatible with advanced privacy
features in chains, like Confidential Transactions, which hides the
amounts published in the chain, while still allowing anyone to verify
that no assets are being created or destroyed.

As far as I know, lightning currently uses a common secret/nonce for
the several txs in a lightning payment, similar to decentralized
ripple v0.6's commit token, but that's not necessary in lightning and
I believe the plan is to remove it in future versions of the protocol.

I don't know much about interledger, but since it seems to have some
common goals, I agree with Ryan that it would be nice if there could
be more collaboration and standarization.
But honestly, I believe that if interledger isn't compatible with
lightning it will be mostly for interledger's loss and not the other
way around (I'm aware most people here will probably disagree with
this point).
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 22:25:06 UTC

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