Re: [Din] Minimal assumption for interoperable blockchain systems

I’m not on the cosmos team, although I do know them. I’ll try to see if
one of their team members have time to join this discussion. I don’t
have the expertise to do either protocol justice.
--
  Jehan Tremback
  jehan@altheamesh.com


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
>
> >>> From: crowcroft@gmail.com [crowcroft@gmail.com]
> >>> ...
> >>> 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...
>
>
> Jon, this is excellent.
>
> I've been struggling to find words to use for what you refer to as
> "consistency", particularly with regards to the end-state
> ("eventuality").
>
> I'm assuming that at a high level, the "eventuality" is defined as
> some> data-string being recorded on the ledger of a BC (i.e. all distributed> P2P nodes of the BC).
>
> As you correctly intuited, the consistency-problem is more
> difficult for> cross-ledger transactions.
>
> A simple example with 1 entity only:  Alice wants to "move" her
> registered land-deed from BC1 to BC2 (direct, no hops).
>
> -- How many transactions does Alice's Application need to
> transmit? (one> only to BC1; or one each to BC1 and BC2; or three: BC1; BC2 and
> then BC1> again).
>
> Any thoughts how how to define  "consistency" more
> specific/technically?>
>
> -- thomas --
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: crowcroft@gmail.com [crowcroft@gmail.com] on behalf of Jon
> Crowcroft [jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 10:12 AM
> To: Thomas Hardjono
> Cc: din@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [Din] Minimal assumption for interoperable blockchain
> systems
>
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:Din@irtf.org>
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din
> _______________________________________________
> Din mailing list
> Din@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din