- From: Ryan Fugger <arv@ryanfugger.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:42:40 -0700
- To: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2017 18:43:34 UTC
It seems to me that streaming payments allows participants to trade off execution speed for lower risk, with the potential for a bit of messiness when payment "packets" get stalled/lost. Atomic payments seem to be ideal for both speed and risk, though... How sure are we that atomic payments aren't realistic for a significant portion of real-world ILP payments? Would it be more useful to try to make atomic mode work for more cases rather than optimizing non-atomic modes at this point? I do think streaming payments is cool in how it mimics TCP/IP, and how things like flow control could be implemented for payment packets, but it worries me that transferring value is fundamentally different than transferring data, in that you can't just resend the value if it gets lost on the way... Why have we seemingly abandoned the ideal of atomic payments?
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2017 18:43:34 UTC