- From: Dimitri De Jonghe <dimi@bigchaindb.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:28:16 +0100
- To: Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com>
- Cc: Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADkP8CpA2NN_XJGiu25JLFQFPJ5Hb-02bRVY=uca-ThdkdHYww@mail.gmail.com>
A suggestion in the spirit of inter-operability: maybe it makes sense to invite the Lightning folks into this discussion? - They've clearly spend a tremendous amount into bitcoin integration - and I can see definitely value in there. - I'm a big fan of simplicity and standards - and couldn't find too much clarity in the docs/specs from lightning. This can be due to my search-skills and efforts... - Maybe the Lightning techs can help us mapping their stack to the interledger stack - see if there is actual overlap and where? > 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). "decentralized silo's" is exactly what interledger wants to overcome. It's an ecosystem effort, no inter-operability between projects (and legacy) means that blockchain efforts won't hit mainstream for a long while 2017-02-28 23:48 GMT+01:00 Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com>: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote: > >> > 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. > > > I've certainly pointed them at Interledger as an example of a layered > payment channel protocol done well, but here's a by-the-numbers comparison > of the two I did in one of my slide decks: > > https://speakerdeck.com/tarcieri/a-protocol-for- > interledger-payments?slide=41 > > Generally they have managed to produce voluminous papers and documentation > which doesn't specifically answer questions I'm concerned with or serve to > document how to actually implement the protocol (i.e. I have had trouble > using their documentation to answer specific questions about constructions) > > Their documentation is simultaneously extremely verbose and vague. It's > not structured in terms of core ideas and subcomponents that can build on > top of it. Instead it's highly coupled, overly complex, and poorly > described. > > Some specific, prescriptive advice would be to extract the core ideas into > a self-contained document. I think they should be able to describe the core > protocol, in a completely self-contained manner, with enough specificity to > serve an implementer, in 20-30 pages. > > From there, they could layer on additional, optional functionality as > add-ons. > > Instead they have a complex, highly coupled protocol with many > intermingled components trying to do a lot of things at the same time, and > it's not clear how effective it is at any of them. It's hard to think about > any of these components in isolation. > > -- Dimitri De Jonghe, PhD Developer +32 496 809 414 | Twitter <https://twitter.com/DimitriDeJonghe> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dimitridejonghe> | GitHub <https://github.com/diminator> | S <https://facebook.com/>kype: dimi.dejonghe [image: Logo] <https://www.bigchaindb.com/> BigchainDB GmbH Wichertstr. 14a, 10439 Berlin | Managing Director: Bruce Pon | Registered in Berlin HRB 160856B |info@bigchaindb.com | www.bigchaindb.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 00:28:53 UTC