- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:45:39 +0200
- To: Rafael Pereira <rafael@rippex.net>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>, Audrius Ramoska <ramoska.audrius@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KR9u25RpVQXGn1x7o21-=du3rnTJS6a_dk45hdoNOhNg@mail.gmail.com>
On 23 January 2016 at 12:42, Rafael Pereira <rafael@rippex.net> wrote: > "It would be quite interesting, imho, to see how hard it would be to get > two independently designed ledgers to cooperate." > Yeah, that's the goal right? > Exactly :) > > > Em sáb, 23 de jan de 2016 às 04:55, Melvin Carvalho < > melvincarvalho@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> On 23 January 2016 at 04:51, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote: >> >>> We're working on a public ILP-enabled test ledger instance for this >>> group to play with. We just deployed the first version and are testing it >>> internally. Give us some time to work through a first round of feedback, >>> but we're excited to share it with you all soon. >>> >> >> Sounds great! As it happens, I've been reading up on this design, this >> week. >> >> I think it may be nice, and also a good test, if my testnet and yours >> could be shown to interoperate. >> >> I agree in principle with the design goals of inter ledger, tho some >> slight implementation details may differ. I'd be prepared to write some >> glue code, in order to try and make hetrogeneous ledgers be able to work >> together ... >> >> It would be quite interesting, imho, to see how hard it would be to get >> two independently designed ledgers to cooperate. >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jehan Tremback < >>> jehan.tremback@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ILP has these advantages in theory. A testnet shows us how this stuff >>>> works in practice. Not a bad thing to learn about. >>>> >>>> -Jehan >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Audrius Ramoska < >>>> ramoska.audrius@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Melvin, >>>>> >>>>> I am curious what is the reason to simulate existing payment system >>>>> and to play with it? >>>>> >>>>> ILP we started to work have key advantages comparing to existing inter >>>>> ledger payments. >>>>> Dedicated intermediate company, secure communication channels between >>>>> banks and intermediate company, dedicated funds allocation... all that and >>>>> more are disadvantages comparing to ILP we are working on. Inter country >>>>> payment with such one intermediate company/solution become more complicated. >>>>> In some countries business (not bank) could buy something like payment >>>>> processing license. In such cases one intermediate company services loses >>>>> advantages, payment environment for end customer become more complicated >>>>> despite that competition pushing service price down. >>>>> Distributed ILP approach at certain level solve all these problems. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Audrius >>>>> >>>>> On 20 January 2016 at 23:03, Melvin Carvalho < >>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail..com <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Interesting post on the inter ledger element of banking. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://getmondo.co.uk/blog/2016/01/20/how-do-bank-payments-work/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Im thinking of simulating this on a testnet for people to play around >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- > > Obrigado, > Rafael > > *Rafael Olaio - CEO* > tel +55 11 2337.2225 > cel +55 11 99522.7572 > rippex.net > > Esta mensagem pode conter informação confidencial e/ou privilegiada. Se > você não for o destinatário ou a pessoa autorizada a receber esta mensagem, > não poderá usar, copiar ou divulgar as informações nela contidas ou tomar > qualquer ação baseada nessas informações. Se você recebeu esta mensagem por > engano, por favor avise imediatamente o remetente, respondendo o e-mail e > em seguida apague-o.This message may contain confidential and/or > privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to > receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take > any action based on this message or any information here in. If you have > received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by > reply e-mail and delete this message. >
Received on Saturday, 23 January 2016 10:46:08 UTC