W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2015

Re: decentralized wallets and payment processors

From: Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:52:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CACvcBVpNfp6ieRTRWr-BrhKcPV8hh-aX9-z09aAXM95QQ0Enxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Sebastian Koske's Thesis may be found here:
http://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/inf/publications/techreports/tr2009/B-09-04/TR-B-09-04.pdf?1346662692
(Swarm Approaches for Semantic Triple Clustering and Retrieval in
Distributed RDF-Spaces"

-Brent Shambaugh

Website: bshambaugh.org

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> -Brent Shambaugh
>
> Website: bshambaugh.org
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think availability of suitable technology is the problem.
>> There are numerous options and numerous deployments of these.
>> That is exactly the problem.
>>
>> A discovery protocol must either pick one datastore or pick many
>> datastores and search them all.
>> If it searches many of these datastores for the data it is trying to find
>> what order does it follow and does it stop when it finds it's first match
>> or does it search them all and then have some rules for picking the most
>> correct match?
>>
>> These are hard problems which today are glossed over by the
>> recommendation to "use telehash".
>>
>> Any clever ideas about how this can be overcome?
>>
>
> I haven't implemented these sorts of things. What immediately comes to
> mind:
>
> (1) swarm intelligence and
>
> (2)  taking advantage of the semantic nature of the data for clustering.
>
> However, I will depart from this for a second.
>
> Telehash adapts the Kadmelia DHT. According to Wikipedia, "Kademlia uses a
> "distance" calculation between two nodes. This distance is computed as the exclusive
> or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or> of the two node IDs,
> taking the result as an integer number
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer>.". (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia)
>
> From https://github.com/telehash/telehash.org/blob/master/v2/dht.md :
>
> "
>
> Telehash adapts the Kademlia
> <https://github.com/telehash/telehash.org/blob/master/v2/references.md>
> Distributed Hash Table for its peer discovery. A "peer" in this document is
> a single application instance, one unique hashname.
>
> Unlike the original Kademlia paper that was a key-value store, there is no
> arbitrary data stored in the DHT. Peers query the DHT purely to locate
> other peers, independent of IP or other transient network identifiers.
> Telehash also departs from Kademlia by using SHA2 256-bit hashes (rather
> than SHA1 160-bit hashes).
>
> Like any DHT, telehash peers cooperatively store all network information
> while minimizing per-peer costs. Derived from Kademlia's hash-based
> addressing and distance calculations, the average number of "nearby" peers
> will grow logarithmically compared to the total global number of peers.
> Peers then attempt to keep track of all of the closest peers, and
> progressively fewer of the farther away peers. This pattern minimizes
> "degrees of separation" between peers while also minimizing the number of
> other peers each indidivual peer must keep track of.
>
> Like Kademlia, telehash measures distance with a bitwise XOR metric which
> divides the address space into 256 possible partitions, also called
> k-buckets. Every peer when compared will have a bucket value based on the
> bit that differs, if the first bit is different the bucket would be 255,
> and if the entire first byte is the same the bucket for that peer would be
> 247."
>
> For (2) I would like to find out if using semantic information from linked
> data would be useful instead of a bitwise XOR metric.
>
> INGA uses semantic information in four layers:
>
> "A peer responds to a query by providing an answer matching the
> query or by forwarding the query to relevant remote peers.
> The local peer determines the relevance of a remote peer
> based on a personal semantic shortcut index. The index is
> created and maintained in a lazy manner, i.e., by analyzing the
> queries initiated by the local peer and by analyzing the queries
> that are routed through the local peer. INGA creates shortcuts
> on four layers: The content provider layer contains shortcuts to remote
> peers which have successfully answered a query;
> the recommender layer stores information about remote peers
> who have issued a query; the bootstrapping layer
> maintains shortcuts to well connected remote peers; and the
> network layer connects to peers on an underlying default network."
>
> A Loser et al, Semantic Social Overlay Networks
>
> (
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.72.7668&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> )
>
> This leads to a question of using linked data as shortcuts to other peers.
> How well would it fit into this model?
>
> A later part of the paper provides a start:
>
> "Conjunctive queries. Each query may include several pred-
> icates, e.g. Select all resources that belong to the topic
> semantic web and to the topic p2p. Using a common
> topic hierarchy this query can be rewritten as
> Find any resource having topics /computer/web/semanticweb and /com-
> puter/distributed/TourismTechnology. An exact match ap-
> proach routes a query only to a peer that matches
> all predicates of the query using a simple exact match paradigm."
>
>
> Considering (1) for swarm intelligence, I am reminded of Sebastian Koske's
> Thesis, SwarmLinda is mentioned on page 34-35 that allows for self
> organization into clusters.
>
> The next sections are summarized on page 40:
>
> "In the next sections, swarm-based approaches are introduced, which
> provide support for typed templates (allowing typed triple retrieval), as
> they cluster statements semantically and form thematically confined areas
> within the Triple Space.:
>
> Could you combine both? It seems you would want to cluster similar things
> while providing hints at what might be in other places. Then you could add
> DHT to this for storage if you wanted?
>
> For the record, SwarmLinda uses tuplespace. (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple_space)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 7 April 2015 at 11:22, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> use http://www.libtorrent.org/dht_store.html to store a verified
>>> ledger. Start by adapting the BTC blockchain to dht_store access.
>>> Devise a mechanism for trusting providers of cached ledger query
>>> responses.
>>>
>>>
>>> > What is missing is a decentralised data store that can serve as the
>>> registry
>>> > for these identities. The Credentials CG has proposed Telehash as this
>>> > data-store.
>>> > The challenge is that one then has to be explicit in defining the
>>> discovery
>>> > protocol as to which decentralised data store to use.
>>>
>>> > If someone proposed the namecoin block-chain as an alternative how do
>>> we
>>> > decide which to use?
>>> > Who will the stewards of this decentralised data store?
>>> > Is there an architecture for this data store that would be
>>> rubber-stamped by
>>> > the W3C as a cornerstone for dependent recommendations?
>>> > (Here I am trying to think of an architecture that incentivises
>>> participants
>>> > to maintain the network assuming that financial incentives aren't
>>> practical)
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 23:53:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:39 UTC