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

> 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?

Yes.

> then could there be additionally a third ledger -- also developed
independently -- that carries the actual works themselves -- the digital
files being sold?

Yes, although if I understood you correctly, I wouldn't call this a ledger.
Ledgers as we define them are concerned with accounting - tracking
ownership or attribution of assets/liabilities. So ODRL is definitely a
ledger. But a system that houses the actual files would be more like a
distributed file system than a ledger. Even if that system is aware of ODRL
and for instance only lets you download files that you have a license for,
it still wouldn't be a ledger, just a system that is paying attention to
one.

> Is something like this possible with the ILP?

Yes. Exchanging value between ledgers (e.g. licenses on one ledger vs
payment on another) is exactly what ILP is designed for.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>