Re: Blockchain, block size and interledger (was: How do bank payments actually work?)

On 1/27/16 7:15 AM, Stefan Thomas wrote:
> In order to transact via ILP all we have to agree on is a
> cryptographic primitive (like SHA-2) and basic escrow semantics
> (proposed, prepared, executed, rejected). That's the minimum required
> to make payments interoperable and it leaves everyone free to innovate
> on better, faster, smarter, more secure, more local and more scalable
> ledgers rather than fighting over the technical direction of the one
> ledger to rule them all.

Very interesting. Does this mean that, say, the ODRL (Open Digital 
Rights Language), -- which specifies, for example, what rights exist 
to sell a given item, and for how much, and who owns it, etc., -- 
could exist in one ledger, and the payment system when someone wants 
to buy the item, could exist in a second ledger? And that the two 
ledgers could be developed separately?

And in fact, I might as well add a third possible ledger interesting 
for me personally: if we're talking about digital works being sold, 
then could there be additionally a third ledger -- also developed 
independently -- that carries the actual works themselves -- the 
digital files being sold?

So that the entire system interacting would be:
1. Ledger A, the ODRL
2. Ledger B, the Payments system (probably developed by this or a 
similar group)
3. Ledger C, the network of digital files owned and provided by the 
creators (and/or publishers).

Is something like this possible with the ILP?

Steven Rowat

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 15:49:19 UTC