Re: [Blockchain-interop] Scope of Work

[Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Rafael.

As I mentioned, maybe there will need to be a kind of "payload profile" that defines the meaning of the component/part of the payload according to the type of asset and policies/conditions. 

This profile (specification) would include links to the resources (off-chain, or on-chain on ledger L1) that must be delivered from G1 to G2 in order to permit G2 to evaluate and accept the payload.

So for example, if the virtual asset was stablecoin X backed by some securities, then the "payload profile for X" specification may mandate inclusion of a URL to the signed securities (i.e. digitized securities). The profile may even include the Jurisdictions where the profile is honored.

Just a thought.


-- thomas --




________________________________________
From: Rafael André Pestana Belchior [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:16 PM
To: Thomas Hardjono
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Blockchain-interop] Scope of Work

Hello All,
Great to e-meet you.

The fact that G1 signs the payload using its key-pair is a good start to
ensure accountability. We need to discuss if the protocol should assure
accountability in case of dispute, or if it suffices to coordinate
communication.

Cheers,
--rafael

A 2020-10-13 20:47, Thomas Hardjono escreveu:
> Hi Aetienne,
>
>>> Regarding the scope: I was wondering whether we
>>> should also include other interoperability issues apart
>>> from asset transfers, such as referencing data
>>> between blockchains (or from a blockchain to a legacy system)?
>
> Yes, for sure -- the model describes in the architecture draft calls
> these references and data (on-chain and off-chain) generically as
> "blockchain resources".
>
> For example, if a third party entity is used to "price"  a virtual
> asset (e.g. economic pricing or estimate done by a bank or FI) prior
> to the asset transfer, then the transfer-payload between G1 and G2
> could (must) include a link (e.g. URL or hash) to the claim signed by
> the  third party.
>
> This means that G1 must sign the payload using its entity public key
> pair (not the transaction public key pair).  Here G1 (i.e. the VASP
> owner of G1) is essentially asserting the truthfulness of the link to
> the resource.
>
> Best
>
>
> -- thomas --
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Blockchain-interop [[e-mail]] on
> behalf of [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:45 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Blockchain-interop] Scope of Work
>
> Hi all, great meeting you all in today's kickoff call!
>
> Regarding the scope: I was wondering whether we should also include
> other interoperability issues apart from asset transfers, such as
> referencing data between blockchains (or from a blockchain to a legacy
> system)?
>
> The reason why I'm asking is because a new DLT law is expected to
> enter into force in Switzerland next year, which will require that for
> all DLT-based financial instruments corresponding investor
> documentation (e.g. prospectus) shall be made available either
> directly on the given ledger or by referring to an outside data
> storage (which could be a legacy system as mentioned on slide 10 point
> 2). The latter case obviously creates an interoperability problem. So
> far the legislator has only outlined that there needs to be a unique
> pointer/identifier (e.g. a hash of the document), to ensure integrity
> of the accompanying external documentation. But apart from that there
> are currently no specific technical guidelines on how an interoperable
> on-/off-ledger pointer mechanism shall work. IMO our IETF working
> group could be a great platform to discuss and provide some guidance.
> What do you think?
>
> Best regards
> Aetienne

--
Rafael Belchior
Ph.D. student in Computer Science and Engineering, Blockchain - Técnico
Lisboa
https://rafaelapb.github.io/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rafaelpbelchior/