| Date: | July 21, 2016 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Area Director: | Alissa Cooper |
| Chairs: | Adam Roach, Matt Miller |
| Minutes: | Bryan Call |
Administriva/Goals and Non-Goals
Non-goals
not forming a working group
not introduce blockchain
Goals
introduce interledger and crypto-conditions
gauge interest
determine how to proceed
Chairs request that only clarifying questions be asked during the presentation, others held for open-mic portion of session.
The Interledger Protocol / Crypto-conditions
Adrian Hope-Bailie
Background
whitepaper https://interledger.org/interledger.pdf
irc channel #interledger on irc.w3.org
mailing list public-interledger@w3.org
Business adoption
Ripple, BigchainDB
Gatehub, Bitstamp - exchanges
interest from central banks
interest from protocol and platform developers for micropayments
IP and project resources
nonprofit foundation
IP will be royalty-free
github: https://github.com/interledger
Evan Schwartz
Ledgers are about accounts and balances
The world will never agree on one ledger
Payment networks are disconnection now
Interledger - protocol for payments across payment networks
Connector - pays and routes money
Ilp packet instructs a connector what to do
if a connector fails or steals money?
ledger provides a hold
holds expire
crypto condition
process
sender puts fund on hold
recipient get a notification
recipient signs the notification and sends it back
Stefan Thomas
Addressing and routing
ledger.subleger.account
connectors advertise their routes
connectors will have multiple routes with a cost
Eric Rescorla: What if the connector just lied about the exchange rate?
Stefan: The receiver will need to verify the exchange rate (the amount transferred) and fail if the amount was too small. As a connector you will want to be reliable and want to have a good exchange rate If connector fail then people wont want to use them.
Cullen Jennings: how often are rates going to change, how often will they be propagated? how do you prevent someone putting something on hold for awhile until the exchange was in your favor?
Stefan: fees can be used on the connectors to limit the amount of hold gaming Current exchanges allow for 60 seconds to confirm transfers now.
Evan Schwartz: Connectors that fail to transfer money may lose money. In multi-hop payments connectors are incentivized to retry in through the same route
Eric Rescorla: Why do payments timeout if the recipient doesn’t respond for a while?
Presenter: Money can be locked up for that time period
Are simple signatures sufficient?
no, insider can steal the key
Using multi-signatures
possible extensions
larger hash sizes (512-bits)
sub-delegation condition
crypto-conditions
minimal
verifiable keys
Questions about scale: Assume your routing is between a couple institutions?, Would it be good for people to have their own ledger?
Presenter: other people do not need to know about sub ledgers
Question: How do you get a public key for someone at verify it is valid?
Presenter: interledger doesn’t define how you get the information for getting the public keys
Weaving the ILP Fabric into BigchainDB/ascribe.io
Interledger allow bigchaindb to exchange other items besides currency
Next Steps / Open Mic Discussion
| Presenters: | Adrian Hope-Bailie, Evan Schwartz, Stefan Thomas, Chairs |
Dan: How do connectors get fees?
Presenter: connectors can get fees by changing the transfer amount from the sender and receiver or having it a condition on another payment
Question: Barriers to entry for being a ledger?
Presenter: you have to get a connector to connect to your ledger
Rick Salz: Good to see a protocol that puts the risk on the connectors instead of the end users
Dave Crocker: If there is a way that can split out the design from the payment subject matter then it would be helpful.
Andrew Sullivan: Models that are used in other designs used in the IETF: hierarchy of domains, routing, etc and echoed what Dave said
Eric Rescorla: I have number of concerns with IETF taking up this work. We don’t have a lot experience with game theory and working in adversarial conditions.
Yaron Sheffler: interested in the work and thought it was relevant. Doesn’t like some of the details, but this isn’t the place to talk about. Good that there are financial institutions interested.
Richard Barnes: Thinks there are overlaps with the IETF. BGP is used in adversarial conditions today.
Dave Crocker: Most of the time, the question is did they pass the smell test? The answer is yes, and sees that an overlap with the IETF. There is a chance that the IETF might get something out of it having this part of the IETF
Jason Nicols: exchange rate process is kinda hand wavy. How do you think that splitting out
Eric Rescorla: Doesn’t think that IETF haves any experience with routing in adversarial environments.
Unidentified speaker: Would love to see this work part of the IETF.
Chairs: more discussion will happen about this on the mailing list. NOTE: chairs pointed to the art discussion list, but that has been overtaken by events. Interested parties should use the LEDGER discussion list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledger