Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees

Notes

Self-describing characteristics for blockchain interchain integration and APIs.

The main discussion: 

  • Assumptions of trust from this Cactus diagram

https://github.com/hyperledger/cactus/blob/master/whitepaper/use-case-ethereum-to-quorum-asset-transfer.png

  • Business model plugin handle

See last weeks IWG. See recording with @Peter and Vipin Bharathan https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/IWG/2020-06-10 

Personal feature branch where I've been dabbling with a plugin for Open ID Connect (still has to pass muster, but if you are interested)

https://github.com/petermetz/blockchain-integration-framework/tree/feature/open-id-connect-web-service-plugin

  • Implicit assumptions
    • Identity
    • Transfers
      • Trust Coinbase exchange     
    • Real World Transfer 
      • Scotch
        • Capture implicit outside of protocol  
          • Code the smart contract based on half or transaction (trusting the scotch will arrive)
            • Requires external payment
          • R3
          • DoS
          • Identity agree to meta
    • Degrees of trust
      • All of nothing
        • $5.00 is low risk
        • $50 million is les absolute 
          • Customise smart contract per transaction
    • Trust Cactus 
      • Trust Cactus server hosting service
        • Host your own Cactus server
          • Cactus has ability to verify ledgers
          • Cactus has ability for plugins to verify each other 
            • Cactus has ability to specify plugin used in smart contract? (Peter mention, usure about this comment).

---//---

Future discussion (proposed agenda for later date)

    • Trust NPM plugins?
    • Mitigating Spectre v1 attacks is mainly needed for virtualized servers
    • Isolating plugins with ES (observable-membrane) 
    • Isolating plugins with SES (agoric) 
           

 Notes are fairly compete, but may have lost notion of context in brevity - cb 


  • No labels