Re: [Din] Minimal assumption for interoperable blockchain systems

No citation of
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/tree/develop/docs/spec/ibc? This
was the original work along these lines from around 2 years ago IIRC.
Should be in production soon if they meet their launch schedule. I'd
appreciate a comparison with tradecoin and an analysis of what trade-in
does differently.
--
  Jehan Tremback
  jehan@altheamesh.com


On Sun, Jun 3, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> looks sane (as did interledger) but we're missing (I think, but may be
> I missed it too) one of the big challenges for this compared with
> scaling (which is what you have to address in internetworking stuff
> whether subnetworks with IP or IGPs with BGP, or serice+content with
> WWW - that's a fundamentally difficult piece of distributed ledgers-
> consistency> 
> one thing the e2e model did for thinking (amongst many) was to think
> in an intensely relaxed way about consistency - IP doesn't care if the
> source is still where it was when the packet reaches the destination
> (or even first hop router. BGP doesn't care (much) about IGP
> convergance when announcing (or withdrawing) prefixes and (most) AS
> paths.. WWW doesn't care if the remote page (server, site or content)
> are there when you add a URL to your site - all this is "fixed up
> later" by some eventual consistency protocol (in IPs case, TCP;  in
> the IGP/BGPs case the linkstate and path vector and a lot of magic
> pixie dust and luck; in the WWW case, search/rank&shame and later
> maintenance) -> 
> so for inter-ledger type thinking, we're connecting systems that
> fundamentally care about consistency - but define its eventuality
> differently - so a basic building block of an interoperabilty or inter-
> domain protocol would be to convey (and somehow reconcile) that
> variation in notion of how long before we agree about an append in
> domain 1, when were' 5 ledger domain hops away...> 
> which reminds me, am I allowed to coin that term "ledgerdomain" ? :-)> 
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Thomas Hardjono
> <hardjono@mit.edu> wrote:>> 
>> Here is a question I'd like to throw out to this community regarding
>> "interoperable blockchain systems" -- a topic which will undoubtedly
>> come to the forefront (assuming it doesn't get drowned-out or killed
>> by the barrage of hype about BC):>> 
>>  -- Minimal assumption: What is the minimal assumption for
>>  interoperable blockchain systems with regards to the notion of
>>  transaction units. In other words, what is the “datagram” equivalent
>>  of transactions – namely the transaction unit that is semantically
>>  understandable (processable) by multiple different blockchain
>>  systems.>> 
>>  This is a question we posed in our recent discussion paper:
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.05934.pdf
>> 
>>  Would love to get your thoughts on this "datagram" equivalent
>>  question (or if this framework of thought is even the correct one).>> 
>> 
>>  Best
>> 
>> 
>>  -- thomas -- 
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Din mailing list
>> Din@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din
> _________________________________________________
> Din mailing list
> Din@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din