Date   

[Hyperledger Project TSC] Scheduling / Technical F2F

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project Technical Community,

As discussed on the TSC call today, there is interest for the TSC to hold a technical face-to-face during the month of March.  Note, this is open to all in the technical community, not just the 11 TSC members.

Please indicate your availability to attend a F2F in NY.  There are currently 3 weeks being considered.


If you have any questions, please send me an email directly.

Regards,

Todd

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Intro from Dan Conner of DisLedger

Allen
 

Hi Dan, my bad--I'll retract the question and post it to the technical list. Thanks, Allen

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Allen <allenpmd@...> wrote:
Hi Dan,

Interesting whitepaper.  Question: If Alice conveys AssetX to Bob, my understanding is that this transaction shows up in the joint ledger between Alice and Bob, and both parties have an identical copy of this ledger.  Now Bob wants to convey AssetX to Charlie.  How does Charlie know that Bob is the owner of AssetX, or does Charlie just have to take Bob on his word?  Would it make a difference I rephrased that question to read "10 units of X" instead of "AssetX"?

Thanks,

Allen



Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Intro from Dan Conner of DisLedger

Allen
 

Hi Dan,

Interesting whitepaper.  Question: If Alice conveys AssetX to Bob, my understanding is that this transaction shows up in the joint ledger between Alice and Bob, and both parties have an identical copy of this ledger.  Now Bob wants to convey AssetX to Charlie.  How does Charlie know that Bob is the owner of AssetX, or does Charlie just have to take Bob on his word?  Would it make a difference I rephrased that question to read "10 units of X" instead of "AssetX"?

Thanks,

Allen


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Intro from Dan Conner of DisLedger

Dan Conner (dan.conner@disledger.com) <dan.conner@...>
 

That was an interesting TSC call this morning, I’m glad I got to listen in.

 

Attached is brief paper on the distributed concurrence ledger architecture ( also available at: )  http://www.disledger.com/DisLedger_Whitepaper_23Feb2016a.pdf

 

It’s pretty high-level but thought it might be of interest to some in the community.

 

Best Regards,

Dan

 

Dan Conner

DisLedger

www.DisLedger.com

mobile +1 703 597 1413


[Hyperledger Project TSC] link to joint DAH-IBM proposal

Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

Since the mailing list seems to strip the attachments from the archives, I have copied the proposal to a google-doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XV6U3kgZ31vZOz2nBLGe3vJgoLTnmOwv5qf3wo4lI68/edit?usp=sharing

I have also created a Wiki page where we can post proposals going forward.

Cheers,



Christopher Ferris

IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology

IBM Cloud, Open Technologies

email: chrisfer@...

twitter: @christo4ferris

blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/

phone: +1 508 667 0402


[Hyperledger Project TSC] resend of joint proposal

Tamas Blummer <tamas@...>
 


This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
Tamas Blummer
Chief Ledger Architect



[Hyperledger Project TSC] Introduction Mail from Suresh @ MobiSwipe India

Suresh <suresh@...>
 

Dear All,

 

Good to connect with you on Hyper ledger Project. 

 

I am the Co-Founder of MobiSwipe, mPOS Payments Solutions Start-up based in India. MobiSwipe is PCI-DSS and PA-DSS Compliant Highly Secured mPOS Solution that enables Merchants to Accept Credit & Debit Card Payments Anywhere & Anytime by using their Smart Phone or Tablet loaded with MobiSwipe Application that gets connected to the EMV Certified Pocket-Size Card Reader. We are seed funded by Vijay Shekhar Sharma of PAYTM. 

 

We would like to be part of Hyper Ledger Project and explore Blockchain Technology use case for enabling Person to Merchant Debit and Credit Card Payments Acquiring solution which can Reduce Transaction Cost and other applicable Banking charges such as Interchange, Association fees, processing etc… and enable Real-Time settlements.

 

I look forward to getting involved. Have a Good Day.

 

Thank you

 

Regards

70

 

Suresh S

Co-Founder & Joint CEO

MobiSwipe Technologies Private Limited

Suresh@... / +91 9884170040

 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

 

ANd9GcQwKEz4FVNAunrtrI3xCDZD3-YfOVgeDnTCmQTYHAAhsM4DN6qHBA

www.Facebook.com/MobiSwipe

 


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

Tamas Blummer <tamas@...>
 

Hi Mic,

a joint proposal, that we circulated earlier on this list and will discuss on today's TSC call, attempts to merge a forward-looking technology exploration friendly fabric with an API for higher level application layers and the mature technology of the Bitcoin network. 

Our hlp-candidate that serves as one of the starting points in the proposal and might accommodate some of your uses. We hope on your contribution into the merge process we suggest, so features and design choices you like will be preserved.

Tamas Blummer
Chief Ledger Architect


On 24 Feb 2016, at 23:16, Bowman, Mic via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:

Thanks for putting this together. The white paper is a good starting point. That said, I have some concerns and a few questions. My concerns boil down to two areas: how do we ensure that the architecture/implementation is not limited to the usages we start with (that is, that we do not preclude additional usages) and how do we ensure that the architecture preserves the disintermediation that distinguishes digital ledgers from simple replicated databases.
 
·         In the abstract you reference business to business and business to customers as the two focus areas. While I fully acknowledge the “idiosyncrasies” of Bitcoin, it remains (one of?) the most popular, most active, and most mature of the digital ledgers. In general, sacrificing consumer to consumer usages (of which Bitcoin is one example) before we even begin to explore the architecture seems unfortunate. Clearly we can think of an ordering of usages based on time criticality, business viability, and probability of adoption… however, considering a broad set of usages ensures that decisions made for the most immediate usages don’t preclude other usages that may become the focus later.
·         You’ve provided three usages though there seems to be significant overlap in the requirements driven by those three. If we are going to limit discussion to three or four usages, I would prefer that they stretch thinking about the architecture. I strongly favor moving quickly on what we know (that is, pick one of the usages you propose to focus early implementation), but not if that means sacrificing the flexibility to address in the future the full spectrum of distributed ledger applications. Architectures ossify very quickly with implementation (which is both good and bad). In addition to the ones you provided (which are clearly the most important in the short term) we have a couple additional usages that we use as the basis for our thinking. I’ll publish them in a separate message.
·         The document seems to focus entirely on permissioned ledgers with vetted participants with centrally distributed identities. The architecture has a very strong dependency on what you called the “Membership Service”. I couldn’t find any additional details about that service. From the description it looks like a centralized PKI service. Was that your intention? If so, who runs that? If not, then what is your thinking about the vetting process for participants? I presume there are both a technical and institutional aspects of the solution. How do you imagine multiple providers working together to provide that service? As you are probably aware, Intel is using EPID for enclave attestation in SGX. That provides a way to verify the integrity of computations based on a trusted execution environment without disclosing identity. We would certainly like to consider the role of that capability in the Registration Service.
·         In most of the deployed ledgers we’ve looked (and we found this to be the case for our own tests), there is some way to manage transaction ingress to avoid DOS attacks and manage over-subscription of capacity. I really like the Ripple approach of “burning XRPs” as a way of ensuring that there is some back-pressure on transaction submission (you can easily submit valid transactions but it’s hard to submit enough to perform a DOS attack). Bitcoin miners are free to establish mechanisms to prioritize the transactions selected for a particular block (and there appear to be many such policies). Even in a permissioned ledger, there is a danger of one institution monopolizing a substantial portion of the resources unless there is some decentralized policy for managing resource utilization. As a group, we should think about mechanisms for incentivizing good behavior or constraining (possibly correct but) inappropriate behavior.
·         In the Usage FAQ linked to the white paper the expected performance numbers are 100K tps with 15 validating nodes “running in close proximity”. What does “close proximity” mean in this case? Single data center? Single metropolitan area? Implementations traditional BFT algorithms are hard to get right and are *VERY* difficult to scale to large numbers of participants (where large is 50). Even if we assume that there are some (to be discovered) techniques for scaling that to a few 100’s of replicas, that severely limits the decentralization of the ledger validation service (so we end up with just a replicated database). What are your thought about the organizational/institutional impact of that architecture (e.g. are there hierarchies of consortiums)? Clearly not every organization that would use the ledger would be in a position to participate in the validation of transactions. That means, at best, we have to build some kind of consortium to manage the limited number of validators or, at worst, we end up with a single provider (in which case we aren’t really talking about a distributed ledger any more).
·         And on the performance… again, it seems likely that some form of traditional BFT algorithm is going to be necessary for the financial applications where there are problems with the rollback potential in the proof-of-* blockchain consensus algorithms (including the one I talked about in the review last week). BFT algorithms force us into a small validator pool deployment. However, not all workloads are intolerant of rollback and are amenable to more scalable (where scalable is defined in terms of number and decentralization of validation resources) algorithms.. It seems unlikely that the three usages in the white paper will expose those requirements. I’m fairly certain that the IoT device registries and some other uses like that would help to expand our thinking.
·         One more issue that is probably more implementation than architecture… we have some concerns about the use of containers. The most obvious is the increase in the number of docker exploits that have been documented recently (see for example https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/five-security-concerns-when-using-docker and https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-9357). The other concern that that containers limit access to unique HW capabilities like SGX.
 
Again… I really like the architecture for addressing the needs of small groups of vetted organizations with high transaction rate requirements which is the dominant use in FSI. I look forward to working through validation of that claim and to adapting this (or another architecture if appropriate) to a broader set of requirements.
 
--mic
 
C. Mic Bowman
Principal Engineer
Intel Corporation
 
 
From: hyperledger-tsc-bounces@... [mailto:hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:32 AM
To: hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper
 
All, as we discussed on the TSC call, here's a link to the IBM blockchain whitepaper that we published with the open blockchain repos earlier this week. We welcome any and all feedback.
 
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402
 
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc


This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal

Michael Dolan <mdolan@...>
 

I think there may be gap in understanding between those who were part of the early formation discussions and those who have joined the public conversations after the launch. Prior to launch there was discussion of the scope for Hyperledger amongst the companies who worked on the formation. 

There may be some “catching up” that group needs to do explaining the scope they were thinking of to the broader community. The attached diagram I believe captures the final draft that was discussed from a scope perspective - maybe this would be a helpful topic to start with today prior to jumping into the proposal?

— Mike

---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
---



On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Middleton, Dan via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:

Hi Chris,
 
Before engaging in a consolidation project, I think it would be helpful to better define the overall goals.  It is difficult to assess the merits of a design without the context of the problems it is intended to solve.
 
I propose that we first define objectives of the system.  This needn’t be a document heavy DODAF-style requirements process.  But completely forgoing such a process seems to make our decisions arbitrary.
 
Ultimately the success of this project will hinge on whether the software solves real problems for which there isn’t already a satisfactory solution.  In particular my mind goes to distinctions between a distributed ledger and a replicated database before even getting to specialized features of transaction types.  But rather than focus on that exclusively or attempt to list all possible objectives here, I will instead suggest that the first ‘sprint’ of the group be to define high-level objectives. 
 
With those objectives defined we can then assess an architecture that selects components from the pool of contributions or creates new ones accordingly.
 
Regards,
Dan Middleton
intel
 
 
From: hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...[mailto:hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:33
To: hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal
 
All,
 
IBM and Digital Assets would like to jointly submit the following proposal for discussion on this Thursday's TSC call.
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402
 
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal

Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

Hi Chris,

 

Before engaging in a consolidation project, I think it would be helpful to better define the overall goals.  It is difficult to assess the merits of a design without the context of the problems it is intended to solve.

 

I propose that we first define objectives of the system.  This needn’t be a document heavy DODAF-style requirements process.  But completely forgoing such a process seems to make our decisions arbitrary.

 

Ultimately the success of this project will hinge on whether the software solves real problems for which there isn’t already a satisfactory solution.  In particular my mind goes to distinctions between a distributed ledger and a replicated database before even getting to specialized features of transaction types.  But rather than focus on that exclusively or attempt to list all possible objectives here, I will instead suggest that the first ‘sprint’ of the group be to define high-level objectives. 

 

With those objectives defined we can then assess an architecture that selects components from the pool of contributions or creates new ones accordingly.

 

Regards,

Dan Middleton

intel

 

 

From: hyperledger-tsc-bounces@... [mailto:hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:33
To: hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal

 

All,

 

IBM and Digital Assets would like to jointly submit the following proposal for discussion on this Thursday's TSC call.

 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402

 


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

Mic Bowman
 

Thanks for putting this together. The white paper is a good starting point. That said, I have some concerns and a few questions. My concerns boil down to two areas: how do we ensure that the architecture/implementation is not limited to the usages we start with (that is, that we do not preclude additional usages) and how do we ensure that the architecture preserves the disintermediation that distinguishes digital ledgers from simple replicated databases.

 

·         In the abstract you reference business to business and business to customers as the two focus areas. While I fully acknowledge the “idiosyncrasies” of Bitcoin, it remains (one of?) the most popular, most active, and most mature of the digital ledgers. In general, sacrificing consumer to consumer usages (of which Bitcoin is one example) before we even begin to explore the architecture seems unfortunate. Clearly we can think of an ordering of usages based on time criticality, business viability, and probability of adoption… however, considering a broad set of usages ensures that decisions made for the most immediate usages don’t preclude other usages that may become the focus later.

·         You’ve provided three usages though there seems to be significant overlap in the requirements driven by those three. If we are going to limit discussion to three or four usages, I would prefer that they stretch thinking about the architecture. I strongly favor moving quickly on what we know (that is, pick one of the usages you propose to focus early implementation), but not if that means sacrificing the flexibility to address in the future the full spectrum of distributed ledger applications. Architectures ossify very quickly with implementation (which is both good and bad). In addition to the ones you provided (which are clearly the most important in the short term) we have a couple additional usages that we use as the basis for our thinking. I’ll publish them in a separate message.

·         The document seems to focus entirely on permissioned ledgers with vetted participants with centrally distributed identities. The architecture has a very strong dependency on what you called the “Membership Service”. I couldn’t find any additional details about that service. From the description it looks like a centralized PKI service. Was that your intention? If so, who runs that? If not, then what is your thinking about the vetting process for participants? I presume there are both a technical and institutional aspects of the solution. How do you imagine multiple providers working together to provide that service? As you are probably aware, Intel is using EPID for enclave attestation in SGX. That provides a way to verify the integrity of computations based on a trusted execution environment without disclosing identity. We would certainly like to consider the role of that capability in the Registration Service.

·         In most of the deployed ledgers we’ve looked (and we found this to be the case for our own tests), there is some way to manage transaction ingress to avoid DOS attacks and manage over-subscription of capacity. I really like the Ripple approach of “burning XRPs” as a way of ensuring that there is some back-pressure on transaction submission (you can easily submit valid transactions but it’s hard to submit enough to perform a DOS attack). Bitcoin miners are free to establish mechanisms to prioritize the transactions selected for a particular block (and there appear to be many such policies). Even in a permissioned ledger, there is a danger of one institution monopolizing a substantial portion of the resources unless there is some decentralized policy for managing resource utilization. As a group, we should think about mechanisms for incentivizing good behavior or constraining (possibly correct but) inappropriate behavior.

·         In the Usage FAQ linked to the white paper the expected performance numbers are 100K tps with 15 validating nodes “running in close proximity”. What does “close proximity” mean in this case? Single data center? Single metropolitan area? Implementations traditional BFT algorithms are hard to get right and are *VERY* difficult to scale to large numbers of participants (where large is 50). Even if we assume that there are some (to be discovered) techniques for scaling that to a few 100’s of replicas, that severely limits the decentralization of the ledger validation service (so we end up with just a replicated database). What are your thought about the organizational/institutional impact of that architecture (e.g. are there hierarchies of consortiums)? Clearly not every organization that would use the ledger would be in a position to participate in the validation of transactions. That means, at best, we have to build some kind of consortium to manage the limited number of validators or, at worst, we end up with a single provider (in which case we aren’t really talking about a distributed ledger any more).

·         And on the performance… again, it seems likely that some form of traditional BFT algorithm is going to be necessary for the financial applications where there are problems with the rollback potential in the proof-of-* blockchain consensus algorithms (including the one I talked about in the review last week). BFT algorithms force us into a small validator pool deployment. However, not all workloads are intolerant of rollback and are amenable to more scalable (where scalable is defined in terms of number and decentralization of validation resources) algorithms.. It seems unlikely that the three usages in the white paper will expose those requirements. I’m fairly certain that the IoT device registries and some other uses like that would help to expand our thinking.

·         One more issue that is probably more implementation than architecture… we have some concerns about the use of containers. The most obvious is the increase in the number of docker exploits that have been documented recently (see for example https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/five-security-concerns-when-using-docker and https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-9357). The other concern that that containers limit access to unique HW capabilities like SGX.

 

Again… I really like the architecture for addressing the needs of small groups of vetted organizations with high transaction rate requirements which is the dominant use in FSI. I look forward to working through validation of that claim and to adapting this (or another architecture if appropriate) to a broader set of requirements.

 

--mic

 

C. Mic Bowman

Principal Engineer

Intel Corporation

 

 

From: hyperledger-tsc-bounces@... [mailto:hyperledger-tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:32 AM
To: hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

 

All, as we discussed on the TSC call, here's a link to the IBM blockchain whitepaper that we published with the open blockchain repos earlier this week. We welcome any and all feedback.

 

 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402

 


[Hyperledger Project TSC] TSC Chair - Results

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project TSC,

The election for the TSC Chair has concluded.  Chris Ferris has been elected as the TSC Chair for the first year.

Regards,

Todd

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal

benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@...>
 

Is design and usecases from digital assets available, maybe we can share a link here ?

regards groet gruss

Benedikt

On 23 feb. 2016, at 20:34, Tamas Blummer via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:

Thanks a lot Chris for formulating our shared proposal. We look forward for feedback of the community.

Tamas Blummer
Chief Ledger Architect

<LogoVariations-03.jpg>

On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:32, Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:

All,
 
IBM and Digital Assets would like to jointly submit the following proposal for discussion on this Thursday's TSC call.
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402

<DAH-IBM Hyperledger Project Proposal - 20160223v2.docx>_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc


This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal

Tamas Blummer <tamas@...>
 

Thanks a lot Chris for formulating our shared proposal. We look forward for feedback of the community.

Tamas Blummer
Chief Ledger Architect


On 23 Feb 2016, at 13:32, Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:

All,
 
IBM and Digital Assets would like to jointly submit the following proposal for discussion on this Thursday's TSC call.
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402

<DAH-IBM Hyperledger Project Proposal - 20160223v2.docx>_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc


This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.


[Hyperledger Project TSC] proposal

Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

All,
 
IBM and Digital Assets would like to jointly submit the following proposal for discussion on this Thursday's TSC call.
 
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

Fabian Schuh <fabian@...>
 

ok, get your point ! indeed, without turing complete machines, things
look different.

Two questions:
1. How will you then have binding smart scripts ? You basically 'only
secure' the data on the blockchain, you dont plug together atomic
transactions, like: you switch on some device for me, then blockchain
script sends you currency
The blockchain doesn't tell you if a transactions is valid, it only shows you that
it has been authorized by someone.
Executing a contract is a matter of running the ordered transactions through a
finite state machine. Those transactions that are invalid (e.g. double spend) are
ignored. At the end, the finite state machine reaches the new state of the 'database'.
Main difference is that the FSM is not executed as part of the blockchain (consensus)
protocol but as a user-side plugin that merely takes its inputs from the blockchain.
Any smart contract can be run that way as well.

2. even if you have no turing complete language on the blockchain,
would see the need of a strong obligatory consensus mechanism. if you
have only identity management, it seems to me (happy to be corrected)
you basically rely on 'disciplining' your well-known members in case
they would introduce forged copies.
You shouldn't trust anything that is written on this kind of blockchain (unless you can
trust a users reputation) but should run a smart contract on top of the data stored in
the blockchain. Only then will you get a new state for your chain (e.g. set of unspend
outputs).

In essence, you allow a user to put ANY kind of data in the blockchain and filter it out
by validation through a FSM that is pluggin in ontop of the *raw* blockchain data.
Advantage is that you can have turing complete scripting on the user side and even hide you
contracts as they are not stored on the blockchain but only the (potentially encrypted) data
is stored on the common blockchain.

Regards
-- Fabian

Hi Fabian, Hello Benedict, I would hope for an architecture where a blockchain stores more than letters of intent but implements somewhat more binding and automated smart contracts. A "letter of intent" can still execute a smart contract. The smart contract would just not be executed as part of the blockchain protocol but 'outside' of the blockchain. In the end, a turing machine consists of a storage and an executing unit and I propose the executing unit to be outside of the blockchain (which is just for storage). Well, this is just one way to do it and I would rather see the features of the chain be implemented as blockchain protocol. I envision a blockchain that has some reduced (but extendable) set of allowed operations (non turing complete) that enable the implementation of a high-speed and highly scalable blockchain, while turing complete scripting (e.g. the EVM) can be plugged in as an outside protocol, that can be executed by 3rd party but is not part of the blockchain protocol. Agree with the necessity of Identity Management and scalability. Copied in my points below (to have on thread): 1. would see the need of a strong obligatory consensus mechanismus, it seems optional in OBC. 2.An open question to me seems how you want to block malicious code (turing halting problem), if you don't introduce a digitcal currency and hence allow something like the notion of gas in ethereum to stop too long running transactions. With what I proposed above, you don't have that issue since the blockchain doesn't execute any user defined script but only runs those that have been integrated into the blockchain protocol. Cheers -- Fabian regards benedikt --- regards groet gruss benedikt herudek On 23.02.2016 10:29, Fabian Schuh via hyperledger-tsc wrote: &gt; This is an excellent paper to get a rough idea and it is well written. Good job. &gt; &gt; We at Cryptonomex have though about some parts of your design already and agree on most of them: &gt; &gt; * There is a need for an identity management on top of a blockchain. For that reasons, you would like to have customers register an account name (together with public keys)on the blockchain and authenticate every transaction with on of your accounts &gt; * The blockchain mere purpose is to store "letters of intent" from users (e.g. instructions) and they could be anything from "transfers" to sell orders for decentralized order books. &gt; &gt; Now comes the "issue": If you want these instructions to be "executed" as a part of your blockchain protocol (you call them chaincode) such that the blockchain as a database transits into a new "state", then you need to take quite some care about scalability and speed as every instruction has to be executed on every full node if you want to have a trustless system. &gt; &gt; Two strategies exist out of this misery: &gt; a) not every node on your network validates every instruction but only &gt; a set of elected validators do and &gt; they validate each other. &gt; b) you don't execute any instruction at all and let the end users (or &gt; intermediate service) determine the &gt; actual state of the whole (or a part) of the blockchain database. &gt; (We have this implemented already and &gt; call this technology "Plasma" internally). &gt; &gt; Anyway, seeing how you would like this technology to evolve and knowing that we already have parts of it implemented, maybe we should consider a closer partnership between IBM and Cryptonomex. &gt; &gt; Best regards &gt; -- Fabian !!!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED IN !!!!!!!!!!
--

*Fabian Schuh* / Business Developer, Technical Consultant
fabian@... <mailto:fabian@...>


CRYPTONOMEX, INC.

2020 Kraft Dr Suite 3040
Blacksburg, VA 24060
www.cryptonomex.com <https://www.cryptonomex.com>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/cryptonomex-inc-> <https://github.com/cryptonomex> <https://twitter.com/cryptonomex> <https://www.facebook.com/cryptonomex>

Cryptonomex is a leading supplier of advanced block chain technology. That can range from simple advice, to deployment of your application on one of our public block chains, to creating your own private chain


[Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@...>
 

ok, get your point ! indeed, without turing complete machines, things
look different.

Two questions:
1. How will you then have binding smart scripts ? You basically 'only
secure' the data on the blockchain, you dont plug together atomic
transactions, like: you switch on some device for me, then blockchain
script sends you currency
2. even if you have no turing complete language on the blockchain,
would see the need of a strong obligatory consensus mechanism. if you
have only identity management, it seems to me (happy to be corrected)
you basically rely on 'disciplining' your well-known members in case
they would introduce forged copies.

Hi Fabian, Hello Benedict, I would hope for an architecture where a blockchain stores more than letters of intent but implements somewhat more binding and automated smart contracts. A "letter of intent" can still execute a smart contract. The smart contract would just not be executed as part of the blockchain protocol but 'outside' of the blockchain. In the end, a turing machine consists of a storage and an executing unit and I propose the executing unit to be outside of the blockchain (which is just for storage). Well, this is just one way to do it and I would rather see the features of the chain be implemented as blockchain protocol. I envision a blockchain that has some reduced (but extendable) set of allowed operations (non turing complete) that enable the implementation of a high-speed and highly scalable blockchain, while turing complete scripting (e.g. the EVM) can be plugged in as an outside protocol, that can be executed by 3rd party but is not part of the blockchain protocol. Agree with the necessity of Identity Management and scalability. Copied in my points below (to have on thread): 1. would see the need of a strong obligatory consensus mechanismus, it seems optional in OBC. 2.An open question to me seems how you want to block malicious code (turing halting problem), if you don't introduce a digitcal currency and hence allow something like the notion of gas in ethereum to stop too long running transactions. With what I proposed above, you don't have that issue since the blockchain doesn't execute any user defined script but only runs those that have been integrated into the blockchain protocol. Cheers -- Fabian regards benedikt --- regards groet gruss benedikt herudek On 23.02.2016 10:29, Fabian Schuh via hyperledger-tsc wrote: &gt; This is an excellent paper to get a rough idea and it is well written. Good job. &gt; &gt; We at Cryptonomex have though about some parts of your design already and agree on most of them: &gt; &gt; * There is a need for an identity management on top of a blockchain. For that reasons, you would like to have customers register an account name (together with public keys)on the blockchain and authenticate every transaction with on of your accounts &gt; * The blockchain mere purpose is to store "letters of intent" from users (e.g. instructions) and they could be anything from "transfers" to sell orders for decentralized order books. &gt; &gt; Now comes the "issue": If you want these instructions to be "executed" as a part of your blockchain protocol (you call them chaincode) such that the blockchain as a database transits into a new "state", then you need to take quite some care about scalability and speed as every instruction has to be executed on every full node if you want to have a trustless system. &gt; &gt; Two strategies exist out of this misery: &gt; a) not every node on your network validates every instruction but only &gt; a set of elected validators do and &gt; they validate each other. &gt; b) you don't execute any instruction at all and let the end users (or &gt; intermediate service) determine the &gt; actual state of the whole (or a part) of the blockchain database. &gt; (We have this implemented already and &gt; call this technology "Plasma" internally). &gt; &gt; Anyway, seeing how you would like this technology to evolve and knowing that we already have parts of it implemented, maybe we should consider a closer partnership between IBM and Cryptonomex. &gt; &gt; Best regards &gt; -- Fabian !!!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED IN !!!!!!!!!!


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

Fabian Schuh <fabian@...>
 

Hi Fabian,
Hello Benedict,

I would hope for an architecture where a blockchain stores more than letters of intent but implements somewhat more binding and automated smart contracts.
A "letter of intent" can still execute a smart contract. The smart contract would just not be executed as part of the blockchain protocol
but 'outside' of the blockchain. In the end, a turing machine consists of a storage and an executing unit and I propose the executing unit
to be outside of the blockchain (which is just for storage). Well, this is just one way to do it and I would rather see the features of the
chain be implemented as blockchain protocol.
I envision a blockchain that has some reduced (but extendable) set of allowed operations (non turing complete) that enable the implementation
of a high-speed and highly scalable blockchain, while turing complete scripting (e.g. the EVM) can be plugged in as an outside protocol, that
can be executed by 3rd party but is not part of the blockchain protocol.

Agree with the necessity of Identity Management and scalability.

Copied in my points below (to have on thread):
1. would see the need of a strong obligatory consensus mechanismus, it seems optional in OBC.
2.An open question to me seems how you want to block malicious code (turing halting problem), if you don't introduce a digitcal currency and hence allow something like the notion of gas in ethereum to stop too long running transactions.
With what I proposed above, you don't have that issue since the blockchain doesn't execute any user defined script but only runs those that have
been integrated into the blockchain protocol.

Cheers
-- Fabian

regards

benedikt

---
regards groet gruss

benedikt herudek

On 23.02.2016 10:29, Fabian Schuh via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
This is an excellent paper to get a rough idea and it is well written. Good job.

We at Cryptonomex have though about some parts of your design already and agree on most of them:

* There is a need for an identity management on top of a blockchain. For that reasons, you would like to have customers register an account name (together with public keys)on the blockchain and authenticate every transaction with on of your accounts
* The blockchain mere purpose is to store "letters of intent" from users (e.g. instructions) and they could be anything from "transfers" to sell orders for decentralized order books.

Now comes the "issue": If you want these instructions to be "executed" as a part of your blockchain protocol (you call them chaincode) such that the blockchain as a database transits into a new "state", then you need to take quite some care about scalability and speed as every instruction has to be executed on every full node if you want to have a trustless system.

Two strategies exist out of this misery:
a) not every node on your network validates every instruction but only
a set of elected validators do and
they validate each other.
b) you don't execute any instruction at all and let the end users (or
intermediate service) determine the
actual state of the whole (or a part) of the blockchain database.
(We have this implemented already and
call this technology "Plasma" internally).

Anyway, seeing how you would like this technology to evolve and knowing that we already have parts of it implemented, maybe we should consider a closer partnership between IBM and Cryptonomex.

Best regards
-- Fabian
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED IN !!!!!!!!!!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper
Date: 20.02.2016 16:15
From: benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@...>
To: hyperledger-tsc@...

Hi Chris,

excellent paper !

Below two remarks / questions around Identity Management vs Consensus and one suggestion concerning data privacy on permissioned blockchains.

Interested in anyone's view.

regards

benedikt


1st remark: Chain Language, Turing halting problem & native currency:

Understand, you don't introduce a native OBC currency. It seems you might introduce a native OBC language in the future. But at the moment, you support existing languages like go. https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/FAQ/chaincode_FAQ.md

Without a native currency, but with a full turing complete language, how will you address someone introducing mailicious code running through endless loops and eating up ressources ? Ethereum wants to address this with the notion of gas, so transactions running too long and not having the ressources will just get halted and rolled back. That is inherently connected to having participants pay for transactions. Hence, having a native cryptocurrency as part of a blockchain seems to offer a good mechanism to block such attacks.

Is the implicit assumption here that enterprise permissioned blockchains have a lesser risk of such intruders and hence, if we establish identity of blockchain participants and have auditors over the network, we would get on top of such intruders anyways ?

2nd remark: Trusted Ledger: Identity Management & Consensus Mechanism:

The OBC you suggests offers participants to plug in their own consenus mechanism. It seems one could even use the OBC architecture without a consensus mechanism:https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/FAQ/consensus_FAQ.md

In that case it might be (see 1st remark) the implicit assumption is we establish identity of participants in blockchains to restrict access and audit members and with ensuring this, we have eventually only trusted members (we dont let others in or remove them) in the network. The need for 'unbreakable' consensus mechanisms like bitcoin proof of work for a permissionless network (everyone can plugin) might become lesser of a concern.

One might think Identity Management introduces a notion of centralization (you also address this point here: https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/FAQ/identity_management_FAQ.md) into a blockchain. But for enterprise transactions, having identity management is just indispensable.

My concern would however be to overstress Identity Management compared to consensus as the underlying mechanism to ensure we have trusted data in a shared ledger. Having Consensus optional and Identity Management mandatory might allow 'abuses' of the architecture as a simple 'inter - enterprise - B2B - platform'. Maybe it could be useful to default a minimal consensus mechanism and give (minimal) criteria to replace the default consensus mechanism you suggest. Having a consensus mechanism enforced, it could also be useful having a lightweight or no-identity management option as part of the OBC for 'bitcoin like' usecases, where participants might not want to reveal their identity.

A Suggestion for Data Privacy on (permissioned) Blockchains

Placing certain data on a shared ledger will be a hard sell too many, who dont sleep well over hearing concepts like 'distrubuted shared ledger' and 'health and financial data' in one sentence. It will be difficult to overcome such concerns with a treatise on the strength of cryptography and frankly, there are ongoing discussions how secure crypto is and will be with more (quantum) computing power in the future.

A pragmatic solution could be placing 'really sensitive data' outside the blockchain, link the data and keep only e.g. a (partial) fingerprint on the blockchain. You mention someting similar in a different context and purpose for files.

https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/whitepaper.md (section Architecture / Blockchain) : Large files (documents, etc.) are stored in off-chain storage, not on the Ledger. Their hashes can be stored on-chain as part of the transactions, which is required to maintain the integrity of files

This could be a general and optional feature: One should be able choosing to have 'really sensitive' data in a permissioned database in one's regular enterprise network. The Blockchain transaction (cryptograhically secured) would contain:

A Link / Url / security tokens (indicating whoever knows this, was 'inside' that blockchain transaction) that allow access to several external System, typically within the enterprise network of participants of the transaction. These networks would use whatever authentication and security regulation authorities and enterprises deem necessary and revoke them when this might seem appropriate.
A 'as good as possible proof' of the contents linked data. This is obviously vague, the idea is that the data is not readable (it's at best partially there) on the blockchain, even if cryptograhpy is 'broken'. Then however, if participants in a transaction have a disput over the content of a transaction, such a 'partial fingerprint' of the data on the blockchain can at least help ruling out 'offbeat' claims from transaction partcipants, which in reality have forged their local data copy.

This feature would represent a trade off between the need for privacy (at your own terms) and the traceability of transactions to settle disputes. One would give up some traceability of the contents of a transaction but gain privacy, in the sense that you control the sensitive data yourself with whatever mechanisms your enterprise (and not the blockchain) considers necessary. For some usecases, this might just be what is needed and integrating this as an optional feature in a enterprise blockchain could enable a number of interesting usecases.








---
regards groet gruss

benedikt herudek


!!!!!!!!!!!!!COPIED IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On 02/18/2016 05:31 PM, Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
All, as we discussed on the TSC call, here's a link to the IBM blockchain whitepaper that we published with the open blockchain repos earlier this week. We welcome any and all feedback.
https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/whitepaper.md
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402



_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--

*Fabian Schuh* / Business Developer, Technical Consultant
fabian@... <mailto:fabian@...>


CRYPTONOMEX, INC.

2020 Kraft Dr Suite 3040
Blacksburg, VA 24060
www.cryptonomex.com <https://www.cryptonomex.com>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/cryptonomex-inc->
<https://github.com/cryptonomex> <https://twitter.com/cryptonomex>
<https://www.facebook.com/cryptonomex>

Cryptonomex is a leading supplier of advanced block chain technology.
That can range from simple advice, to deployment of your application
on one of our public block chains, to creating your own private chain

_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--

*Fabian Schuh* / Business Developer, Technical Consultant
fabian@... <mailto:fabian@...>


CRYPTONOMEX, INC.

2020 Kraft Dr Suite 3040
Blacksburg, VA 24060
www.cryptonomex.com <https://www.cryptonomex.com>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/cryptonomex-inc-> <https://github.com/cryptonomex> <https://twitter.com/cryptonomex> <https://www.facebook.com/cryptonomex>

Cryptonomex is a leading supplier of advanced block chain technology. That can range from simple advice, to deployment of your application on one of our public block chains, to creating your own private chain


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@...>
 

Hi Fabian,

I would hope for an architecture where a blockchain stores more than letters of intent but implements somewhat more binding and automated smart contracts.

Agree with the necessity of Identity Management and scalability.

Copied in my points below (to have on thread):
1. would see the need of a strong obligatory consensus mechanismus, it seems optional in OBC.
2.An open question to me seems how you want to block malicious code (turing halting problem), if you don't introduce a digitcal currency and hence allow something like the notion of gas in ethereum to stop too long running transactions.

regards

benedikt

--- regards groet gruss benedikt herudek On 23.02.2016 10:29, Fabian Schuh via hyperledger-tsc wrote: > This is an excellent paper to get a rough idea and it is well written. Good job. > > We at Cryptonomex have though about some parts of your design already and agree on most of them: > > * There is a need for an identity management on top of a blockchain. For that reasons, you would like to have customers register an account name (together with public keys)on the blockchain and authenticate every transaction with on of your accounts >

* The blockchain mere purpose is to store "letters of intent" from users (e.g. instructions) and they could be anything from "transfers" to sell orders for decentralized order books. > > Now comes the "issue": If you want these instructions to be "executed" as a part of your blockchain protocol (you call them chaincode) such that the blockchain as a database transits into a new "state", then you need to take quite some care about scalability and speed as every instruction has to be executed on every full node if you want to have a trustless system. > > Two strategies exist out of this misery: > a) not every node on your network validates every instruction but only > a set of elected validators do and > they validate each other. > b) you don't execute any instruction at all and let the end users (or > intermediate service) determine the > actual state of the whole (or a part) of the blockchain database. > (We have this implemented already and > call this technology "Plasma" internally). > > Anyway, seeing how you would like this technology to evolve and knowing that we already have parts of it implemented, maybe we should consider a closer partnership between IBM and Cryptonomex. > > Best regards > -- Fabian !!!!!!!!!!!!!! COPIED IN !!!!!!!!!! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper Date: 20.02.2016 16:15 From: benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@...> To: hyperledger-tsc@... Hi Chris, excellent paper ! Below two remarks / questions around Identity Management vs Consensus and one suggestion concerning data privacy on permissioned blockchains. Interested in anyone's view. regards benedikt 1st remark: Chain Language, Turing halting problem & native currency: Understand, you don't introduce a native OBC currency. It seems you might introduce a native OBC language in the future. But at the moment, you support existing languages like go. https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/FAQ/chaincode_FAQ.md Without a native currency, but with a full turing complete language, how will you address someone introducing mailicious code running through endless loops and eating up ressources ? Ethereum wants to address this with the notion of gas, so transactions running too long and not having the ressources will just get halted and rolled back. That is inherently connected to having participants pay for transactions. Hence, having a native cryptocurrency as part of a blockchain seems to offer a good mechanism to block such attacks. Is the implicit assumption here that enterprise permissioned blockchains have a lesser risk of such intruders and hence, if we establish identity of blockchain participants and have auditors over the network, we would get on top of such intruders anyways ? 2nd remark: Trusted Ledger: Identity Management & Consensus Mechanism: The OBC you suggests offers participants to plug in their own consenus mechanism. It seems one could even use the OBC architecture without a consensus mechanism:https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/FAQ/consensus_FAQ.md In that case it might be (see 1st remark) the implicit assumption is we establish identity of participants in blockchains to restrict access and audit members and with ensuring this, we have eventually only trusted members (we dont let others in or remove them) in the network. The need for 'unbreakable' consensus mechanisms like bitcoin proof of work for a permissionless network (everyone can plugin) might become lesser of a concern. One might think Identity Management introduces a notion of centralization (you also address this point here: https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/FAQ/identity_management_FAQ.md) into a blockchain. But for enterprise transactions, having identity management is just indispensable. My concern would however be to overstress Identity Management compared to consensus as the underlying mechanism to ensure we have trusted data in a shared ledger. Having Consensus optional and Identity Management mandatory might allow 'abuses' of the architecture as a simple 'inter - enterprise - B2B - platform'. Maybe it could be useful to default a minimal consensus mechanism and give (minimal) criteria to replace the default consensus mechanism you suggest. Having a consensus mechanism enforced, it could also be useful having a lightweight or no-identity management option as part of the OBC for 'bitcoin like' usecases, where participants might not want to reveal their identity. A Suggestion for Data Privacy on (permissioned) Blockchains Placing certain data on a shared ledger will be a hard sell too many, who dont sleep well over hearing concepts like 'distrubuted shared ledger' and 'health and financial data' in one sentence. It will be difficult to overcome such concerns with a treatise on the strength of cryptography and frankly, there are ongoing discussions how secure crypto is and will be with more (quantum) computing power in the future. A pragmatic solution could be placing 'really sensitive data' outside the blockchain, link the data and keep only e.g. a (partial) fingerprint on the blockchain. You mention someting similar in a different context and purpose for files. https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/whitepaper.md (section Architecture / Blockchain) : Large files (documents, etc.) are stored in off-chain storage, not on the Ledger. Their hashes can be stored on-chain as part of the transactions, which is required to maintain the integrity of files This could be a general and optional feature: One should be able choosing to have 'really sensitive' data in a permissioned database in one's regular enterprise network. The Blockchain transaction (cryptograhically secured) would contain: A Link / Url / security tokens (indicating whoever knows this, was 'inside' that blockchain transaction) that allow access to several external System, typically within the enterprise network of participants of the transaction. These networks would use whatever authentication and security regulation authorities and enterprises deem necessary and revoke them when this might seem appropriate. A 'as good as possible proof' of the contents linked data. This is obviously vague, the idea is that the data is not readable (it's at best partially there) on the blockchain, even if cryptograhpy is 'broken'. Then however, if participants in a transaction have a disput over the content of a transaction, such a 'partial fingerprint' of the data on the blockchain can at least help ruling out 'offbeat' claims from transaction partcipants, which in reality have forged their local data copy. This feature would represent a trade off between the need for privacy (at your own terms) and the traceability of transactions to settle disputes. One would give up some traceability of the contents of a transaction but gain privacy, in the sense that you control the sensitive data yourself with whatever mechanisms your enterprise (and not the blockchain) considers necessary. For some usecases, this might just be what is needed and integrating this as an optional feature in a enterprise blockchain could enable a number of interesting usecases. --- regards groet gruss benedikt herudek !!!!!!!!!!!!!COPIED IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > On 02/18/2016 05:31 PM, Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc wrote: >> All, as we discussed on the TSC call, here's a link to the IBM blockchain whitepaper that we published with the open blockchain repos earlier this week. We welcome any and all feedback. >> https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/whitepaper.md >> Cheers, >> >> Christopher Ferris >> IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology >> IBM Cloud, Open Technologies >> email: chrisfer@... >> twitter: @christo4ferris >> blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/ >> phone: +1 508 667 0402 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hyperledger-tsc mailing list >> hyperledger-tsc@... >> https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc > > -- > > *Fabian Schuh* / Business Developer, Technical Consultant > fabian@... <mailto:fabian@...> > > > CRYPTONOMEX, INC. > > 2020 Kraft Dr Suite 3040 > Blacksburg, VA 24060 > www.cryptonomex.com <https://www.cryptonomex.com> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cryptonomex-inc-> > <https://github.com/cryptonomex> <https://twitter.com/cryptonomex> > <https://www.facebook.com/cryptonomex> > > Cryptonomex is a leading supplier of advanced block chain technology. > That can range from simple advice, to deployment of your application > on one of our public block chains, to creating your own private chain > > _______________________________________________ > hyperledger-tsc mailing list > hyperledger-tsc@... > https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] IBM whitepaper

Fabian Schuh <fabian@...>
 

This is an excellent paper to get a rough idea and it is well written. Good job.

We at Cryptonomex have though about some parts of your design already and agree on most of them:

* There is a need for an identity management on top of a blockchain. For that reasons, you would like to
have customers register an account name (together with public keys) on the blockchain and authenticate
every transaction with on of your accounts
* The blockchain mere purpose is to store "letters of intent" from users (e.g. instructions) and they could
be anything from "transfers" to sell orders for decentralized order books.

Now comes the "issue": If you want these instructions to be "executed" as a part of your blockchain protocol
(you call them chaincode) such that the blockchain as a database transits into a new "state", then you need
to take quite some care about scalability and speed as every instruction has to be executed on every full node
if you want to have a trustless system.

Two strategies exist out of this misery:
a) not every node on your network validates every instruction but only a set of elected validators do and
they validate each other.
b) you don't execute any instruction at all and let the end users (or intermediate service) determine the
actual state of the whole (or a part) of the blockchain database. (We have this implemented already and
call this technology "Plasma" internally).

Anyway, seeing how you would like this technology to evolve and knowing that we already have parts of it
implemented, maybe we should consider a closer partnership between IBM and Cryptonomex.

Best regards
-- Fabian

On 02/18/2016 05:31 PM, Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
All, as we discussed on the TSC call, here's a link to the IBM blockchain whitepaper that we published with the open blockchain repos earlier this week. We welcome any and all feedback.
https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/whitepaper.md
Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology
IBM Cloud, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/
phone: +1 508 667 0402



_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--

*Fabian Schuh* / Business Developer, Technical Consultant
fabian@... <mailto:fabian@...>


CRYPTONOMEX, INC.

2020 Kraft Dr Suite 3040
Blacksburg, VA 24060
www.cryptonomex.com <https://www.cryptonomex.com>

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/cryptonomex-inc-> <https://github.com/cryptonomex> <https://twitter.com/cryptonomex> <https://www.facebook.com/cryptonomex>

Cryptonomex is a leading supplier of advanced block chain technology. That can range from simple advice, to deployment of your application on one of our public block chains, to creating your own private chain