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

Re: LedgerLoops

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:37:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_JV_4xXC88aDG=+8+X-Bj0i-4E90yRGzc6L9R6WzHskWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Hi Michiel,

Thanks for pointing out your work, it looks very interesting and I agree
quite similar to ILP with respect to using cryptographic conditions.

Note that the crypto-conditions have had a major revamp and the latest
changes are in a pull request waiting to merge this week. I'll probabaly
push draft-02 to the IETF data tracker immediatley after merging the PR:


On 30 December 2016 at 17:54, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> Some people on this list might enjoy reading about LedgerLoops:
>    https://ledgerloops.com
> It's a ledger federation protocol that (like Interledger) uses conditional
> transactions which are only fulfilled when a certain cryptographic
> challenge is solved.
> I developed the current version of the LedgerLoops whitepaper in October,
> and it was actually Melvin who discovered its similarities with
> Interledger. So I'm very happy to have found a community of people who also
> believe in ledger federation through conditional transactions! :)
> Unlike Interledger (as far as I understand), LedgerLoops does not require
> intermediaries to see the destination address of a transaction, which
> potentially enables a higher level of privacy.
> LedgerLoops also goes a step further than Interledger in that it attempts
> to create an internet of value where cyclical trade currents ("loops") are
> not broken down into a counter-current of monetary tokens, but the entire
> value flow loop is actioned using just a crypto-trigger, and no
> counter-current of monetary tokens. In that sense, LedgerLoops is an
> alternative to money altogether.
> I hope you enjoy reading about it! Reactions and comments very welcome. :)
> Now that I've found out about Interledger, I'll review the LedgerLoops
> protocol to see where I can make it more compatible with parts of
> Interledger; particularly the format of "condition" and "fulfillment"
> strings can be made identical with the format proposed in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomas-crypto-conditions-01, but there
> may be more points on which the two systems can align.
> Cheers!
> Michiel.
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2017 10:38:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 January 2017 10:38:33 UTC