|
Ursa logo survey now open
Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...>
Hello TSC, I have put together a small survey with our available options for the Ursa logo. I ask each one of you to weigh in with your first and second choice and the winner will be chosen that way. I will leave the survey available until 5 PM Pacific Time next Tuesday, February 5th. This will allow me to announce the winner at our next meeting on Wednesday, February 6th. Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNNHD2FCheers! Dave --- David Huseby Security Maven, Hyperledger The Linux Foundation +1-206-234-2392 dhuseby@...
|
|
|
Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
Gah you are right I grabbed it from the website.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:57 AM Silas Davis < silas@...> wrote: @Silona Bonewald just to check, you said in your email 2-3 pm GMT - should this be 3-4 pm GMT (as I am 80% sure is the normal time...)
|
|
|
Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
@Silona Bonewald just to check, you said in your email 2-3 pm GMT - should this be 3-4 pm GMT (as I am 80% sure is the normal time...)
|
|
|
Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
They have been running the TSC meeting on hyperledger.community.backup zoom channel
On Jan 31, 2019, at 8:27 AM, Sofia Terzi < sterzi@...> wrote: Hello to all, I cannot find the link for today’s meeting neither in the wiki nor in the calendar. Is it common as to the other WG https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community ? If not would you be so kind to send it to me? Thank you, Sofia From: Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:56 AM
To: tsc@...; Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>
Subject: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019 31 Jan proposed agenda: 2-3PM GMT time Announcement: Discussion: - Include ask of TSC for projects to send a representative to LMGD group
Quarterly updates: Delayed quarterly updates: (still missing) Backlog: Please let me know if I have missed anything.
--
|
|
|
Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
Sofia Terzi
Hello to all, I cannot find the link for today’s meeting neither in the wiki nor in the calendar. Is it common as to the other WG https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community ? If not would you be so kind to send it to me? Thank you, Sofia
From: Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:56 AM
To: tsc@...; Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>
Subject: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019 31 Jan proposed agenda: 2-3PM GMT time Announcement: Discussion: - Include ask of TSC for projects to send a representative to LMGD group
Quarterly updates: Delayed quarterly updates: (still missing) Backlog: Please let me know if I have missed anything.
--
|
|
|
Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
Hi,Unfortunately I'm speaking at a conference
and won't be able to make the call this week.I've reached out to the Composer maintainers
but all the IBMers are off this week and no one else responded to my request
on #composer. So, I think it will need to wait for next week when people
are back.Regards
--
Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Web & Blockchain
Open Technologies - IBM
From:
"Silona Bonewald"
<sbonewald@...>To:
tsc@...,
Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>Date:
01/29/2019 11:56 PMSubject:
[Hyperledger
TSC] TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019Sent by:
tsc@...
31 Jan proposed agenda: 2-3PM GMT time Announcement: Discussion: Quarterly updates: Delayed
quarterly updates: (still missing)Backlog: Please
let me know if I have missed anything. -- Silona Bonewald VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silonaThe Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org
|
|
|
TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
31 Jan proposed agenda: 2-3PM GMT time
Announcement: Discussion: Quarterly updates: Delayed quarterly updates: (still missing)
Backlog: Please let me know if I have missed anything. --
|
|
|
Contributors Summits (previously known as Maintainers Summits)
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Suma
Thanks Rich.
Since the WG is just being instituted, I imagine it will take a while. But I agree that these conversations are important to have.
I also look forward to see how things develop in this space.
SUMABALA NAIR
Software Engineer, Watson IoT Blockchain
----- Original message -----
From: Richard Bloch <richardbloch@...>
To: Suma <sumapnair@...>
Cc: dan@..., silas@..., tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Smart contracts working group
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2019 9:55 AM
Good Morning Suma,
I'm the chair of the Healthcare SIG (HC-SIG), and my ears pricked up when I heard someone mention HIPAA compliance ;).
Yes, there is great value in maturing the smart contracts space, and I'm personally interested to learn more as this WG comes together: smart contracts are cross-cutting in their design, and I imagine our SIG working in collaboration with this WG going forward.
I can tell you that our HC-SIG membership would see real value in having a representative from your WG speak at one of our bi-weekly general meetings. Please let me know when you're free to talk more, and we can schedule something.
Best of luck
Thanks
Rich
| | Richard Bloch
Principal, Business Learning Incorporated
Systems & Software Engineering
Seattle, Washington USA
|
This is very timely.
i've been very interested in the potential legal challenges around smart contracts - How do smart contracts need to evolve to a point where they can be backed by legal and actually defended in a court of law? Should there be standardization organizations that work on this?
And also the possibilities around standardization of compliance implementations. For example, would it make sense to have standard smart contracts offered around, say HIPAA compliance that people can just optionally install with the fabric, for example?
SUMABALA NAIR
Software Engineer, Watson IoT Blockchain
----- Original message -----
From: "Dan Selman via Lists.Hyperledger.Org" <dan=clause.io@...>
Sent by: tsc@...
To: silas@...
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Smart contracts working group
Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 4:49 AM
Sound good Silas. I’d be happy to contribute and to represent Accord Project.
Dan
Hi Sofia,
I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there remains a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this way post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be usefully unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of a Smart Contract WG.
I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it would be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios - whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in the way code is general.
Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
- Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
- Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded in a another language
- Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability for formal methods)
- Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing languages
- Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
- Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented', functional, process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special purpose languages
- Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel processing in a single block)
- Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
- Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
- Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e. 'law')
- What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
- What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and agreements?
- At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and execution of agreement?
- What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of computation?
- Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural language, business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
- Data structures and state
- Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags, log-backed maps,
- How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
- Sharing state backends across execution engines
- Conflict-free and additive data structures
- Privacy
- Multi-party secure computation
- Differential privacy
- Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments and witnesses
- Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
- WASM/eWASM
- EVM
- WebIDL
I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use within our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state of the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
Silas On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi < sterzi@...> wrote: Hello,
I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send an email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be a meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is described in the process. Thank you
Best,
Sofia Terzi
Send from android Sony Xperia
--
| This message is confidential and its contents shall not be distributed to any third parties without the permission of the sender. Similarly any documents that are marked as private and confidential or similar are strictly not for distribution or disclosure to any unaddressed parties, without exception. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Rich Bloch <richardbloch@...>
Good Morning Suma,
I'm the chair of the Healthcare SIG (HC-SIG), and my ears pricked up when I heard someone mention HIPAA compliance ;).
Yes, there is great value in maturing the smart contracts space, and I'm personally interested to learn more as this WG comes together: smart contracts are cross-cutting in their design, and I imagine our SIG working in collaboration with this WG going forward.
I can tell you that our HC-SIG membership would see real value in having a representative from your WG speak at one of our bi-weekly general meetings. Please let me know when you're free to talk more, and we can schedule something.
Best of luck
Thanks
Rich | Richard Bloch Principal, Business Learning Incorporated Systems & Software Engineering Seattle, Washington USA |
This is very timely.
i've been very interested in the potential legal challenges around smart contracts - How do smart contracts need to evolve to a point where they can be backed by legal and actually defended in a court of law? Should there be standardization organizations that work on this?
And also the possibilities around standardization of compliance implementations. For example, would it make sense to have standard smart contracts offered around, say HIPAA compliance that people can just optionally install with the fabric, for example?
SUMABALA NAIR
Software Engineer, Watson IoT Blockchain
----- Original message -----
From: "Dan Selman via Lists.Hyperledger.Org" <dan=clause.io@...>
Sent by: tsc@...
To: silas@...
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Smart contracts working group
Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 4:49 AM
Sound good Silas. I’d be happy to contribute and to represent Accord Project.
Dan
Hi Sofia,
I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there remains a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this way post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be usefully unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of a Smart Contract WG.
I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it would be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios - whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in the way code is general.
Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
- Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
- Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded in a another language
- Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability for formal methods)
- Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing languages
- Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
- Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented', functional, process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special purpose languages
- Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel processing in a single block)
- Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
- Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
- Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e. 'law')
- What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
- What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and agreements?
- At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and execution of agreement?
- What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of computation?
- Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural language, business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
- Data structures and state
- Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags, log-backed maps,
- How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
- Sharing state backends across execution engines
- Conflict-free and additive data structures
- Privacy
- Multi-party secure computation
- Differential privacy
- Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments and witnesses
- Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
- WASM/eWASM
- EVM
- WebIDL
I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use within our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state of the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
Silas On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi < sterzi@...> wrote: Hello,
I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send an email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be a meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is described in the process. Thank you
Best,
Sofia Terzi
Send from android Sony Xperia
--
![]() | Dan Selman
CTO | | | |
| |
| This message is confidential and its contents shall not be distributed to any third parties without the permission of the sender. Similarly any documents that are marked as private and confidential or similar are strictly not for distribution or disclosure to any unaddressed parties, without exception. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Identity WG] Proposal for a new SIG (Financial Markets SIG)
Since nobody sleeps in this project ;-), just a quick one: let’s choose whether it’s “Financial Markets” or “Capital Markets”… If people thought that the Supply Chain attracted interest, I am sure that Financial/Capital Markets one will be at least as interesting with so much going on.
I love the initiative Vipin.
Thanks,
Jonathan Levi HACERA - To Blockchain with Confidence Unbounded To Network with Networks
Hi Vipin,
Thanks for writing up the proposal.
It's well worth while developing new SIGs within Hyperledger where
there exists the demand and volunteer time available, and I
appreciate your willingness to help lead such a SIG. We recently
decided (within the TSC and then approved by the Governing Board)
that SIGs no longer needed to be run or approved by the TSC, and
instead are launched and managed by HL staff in consultation with
the community. We'd still love to see public input and
brainstorming around SIG proposals, so the Google doc seems like a
decent place for that, and announcing them here also a great
idea.
Personally, I like the idea of this SIG
and hope we find more folks interested in joining. It certainly
contains topics I know I've heard others express interest in
having a SIG for, particularly post-trade. And it feels
sufficiently well scoped, and distinct from the other existing
SIGs.
Thanks,
Brian
On 1/28/19 5:13 PM, Vipin Bharathan
wrote:
Hello All,
Please find the proposal for a new SIG called Financial Markets SIG. This SIG
has been brewing for a few years; first there was no place to
hold discussion on verticals and we did some of this thinking
in the Requirements working group specifically in the
Post-Trade Settlement use case. However with the maturity and
the appearance of numerous Financial Markets use cases
implemented using dlts under Hyperledger, we believe its time
has come. The discussions with STAC in Performance and Scale Working
Group were the final catalyst.
Please have a look at the SIG proposal and comment on it,
any and all suggestions are welcome. Looking forward to a
fruitful discussion.
Best,
Vipin
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Identity WG] Proposal for a new SIG (Financial Markets SIG)
Hi Vipin,
Thanks for writing up the proposal.
It's well worth while developing new SIGs within Hyperledger where
there exists the demand and volunteer time available, and I
appreciate your willingness to help lead such a SIG. We recently
decided (within the TSC and then approved by the Governing Board)
that SIGs no longer needed to be run or approved by the TSC, and
instead are launched and managed by HL staff in consultation with
the community. We'd still love to see public input and
brainstorming around SIG proposals, so the Google doc seems like a
decent place for that, and announcing them here also a great
idea.
Personally, I like the idea of this SIG
and hope we find more folks interested in joining. It certainly
contains topics I know I've heard others express interest in
having a SIG for, particularly post-trade. And it feels
sufficiently well scoped, and distinct from the other existing
SIGs.
Thanks,
Brian
On 1/28/19 5:13 PM, Vipin Bharathan
wrote:
Hello All,
Please find the proposal for a new SIG called Financial Markets SIG. This SIG
has been brewing for a few years; first there was no place to
hold discussion on verticals and we did some of this thinking
in the Requirements working group specifically in the
Post-Trade Settlement use case. However with the maturity and
the appearance of numerous Financial Markets use cases
implemented using dlts under Hyperledger, we believe its time
has come. The discussions with STAC in Performance and Scale Working
Group were the final catalyst.
Please have a look at the SIG proposal and comment on it,
any and all suggestions are welcome. Looking forward to a
fruitful discussion.
Best,
Vipin
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
|
tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
Reminder:
Hyperledger Composer Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update
When:
Thursday, 31 January 2019
Organizer:
tkuhrt@...
Description:
The Hyperledger Composer update to the TSC was due January 28, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on January 31, 2019. Please review prior to the meeting and bring your questions.
View Event
|
|
|
Proposal for a new SIG (Financial Markets SIG)
Hello All, Please find the proposal for a new SIG called Financial Markets SIG. This SIG has been brewing for a few years; first there was no place to hold discussion on verticals and we did some of this thinking in the Requirements working group specifically in the Post-Trade Settlement use case. However with the maturity and the appearance of numerous Financial Markets use cases implemented using dlts under Hyperledger, we believe its time has come. The discussions with STAC in Performance and Scale Working Group were the final catalyst. Please have a look at the SIG proposal and comment on it, any and all suggestions are welcome. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion. Best, Vipin
|
|
|
Call for 2019 Hyperleger Internship Projects and Mentors
Hyperledger Technical Community: Today, we’re excited to open the call for the 2019 internship mentors and project ideas. We’re looking to sponsor 15 internship projects this year. The Hyperledger internship program is aimed at creating a structured hands-on learning opportunity for college students who may otherwise lack the opportunity to gain exposure to Hyperledger open source development and entry to the technical community. It also provides a more defined path for Hyperledger to connect with the next generation of student developers to inject more talent into its developer base. If you’ve identified a project or task that’s suitable for an internship project and you’re interested in mentoring a student developer, please define the project by completing the internship project proposal template on the wiki before February 22. Additional timeline for this year’s program is as follows: - Call for Internship Projects and Mentors: January 28 - February 22, 2019
- TSC Review and Approval of Internship Projects: February 22 - February 28, 2019
- Application Period: March (and possible through April 12, 2019)
- Application Review and Applicant Interview: April
- Intern Acceptance: end of April
- Intern/Mentor Introduction and Onboarding: May
- Intern Start Date: June 3, 2019
- Full-time Intern Completion Date: August 23, 2019 (12 consecutive weeks)
- Part-time Intern Completion Date: November 15, 2019 (24 consecutive weeks)
A few things to note as you plan to submit a project for consideration: - Multiple mentors supervising one intern per project would be desirable as this helps spread the workload and reduce the challenge of coverage caused by working remotely with an intern in a different time zone.
- The mentor(s) need to be familiar with the project and is/are expected to directly supervise the intern’s technical work.
- The proposed project needs to be clearly scoped and structured to be suitable for an internship project.
- The project should be related to one of the current Hyperledger frameworks or tools.
- The mentor(s) should be ready to be the sponsor of the internship project as a Hyperleger Lab when the internship commences. This ensures that the project progress can be tracked and the project output can be publicly accessible to the community.
Interns will be eligible to receive a stipend. The stipend will be paid in several installments provided that regular interval evaluations show the intern is making satisfactory progress. Each intern who has successfully completed the program will be invited and financially sponsored by Hyperledger to attend an event/conference and present their work to the broader community (specific event TBD but will be during Q3 or Q4 of this year). We look forward to your submission of a project and thank you in advance for volunteering your time to contribute to the training of the new talent pool in the Hyperledger community. Kind regards, Min -- Min Yu Operations Manager The Linux Foundation +1(530) 902-6464 (m) myu@...
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Mohan Venkataraman <mohan.venkataraman@...>
Sophia,
I am a bit behind in my emails but this is definitely a good idea. I had presented Smart Contract Design Patterns during the Global Forum in Basel last December based on my exposure to both Chaincode and Solidity Smart Contracts. One of the topics to add to the proposal might be Design Patterns for Smart Contracts. I will be glad to be part of your WG if this goes through.
Best Regards
Mohan Venkataraman
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 7:44 PM Vipin Bharathan < vipinsun@...> wrote: Hello Sofia,
I welcome the Smart Contract WG into the Hyperledger fold and kudos to you for proposing it; we have had a paper out of the architecture WG on this topic, but having a separate Working Group to talk about this would be great and I am interested in participating.
Silas had a pretty comprehensive list of topics on the subject and Dan Selman of course is an authority on this topic as well. So you have very good supporters and many more will join your group once it starts going.
This is important since CFTC is the main regulator in the US dealing with certain products (Commodities and Futures and maybe derivatives). This coupled with work that ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) is doing on the topic with CDM(Common Domain Model) will certainly be of interest as some parts of the CDM will need to be implemented with smart contracts.
Of course smart contracts are relevant in many other domains and maybe for enforcing some cross cutting concerns like authentication/authorization logging querying encryption etc.
Looking forward to the working group formation and discussions. Best, Vipin
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:36 AM < sterzi@...> wrote: @Silas and @Silona
These are great points and great help, thank you! I will definitely update
my proposal on the wiki to include the feedback. Many of the research
topics you mentioned are of great interest to us and the work we are doing
in CERTH, while the 'code is law' misconception is surely causing problems
to the SCs adoption. The group can focus on these topics and try to
clarify them, setting the grounds to communicate these concepts correctly
to people and markets involved. In addition to that and according to our
expertise regarding the implementation of many solutions with smart
contracts in the energy, healthcare (electronic health records, EHR cross
border interoperability), supply chain but also cybersecurity areas we
believe that we could offer extended expertise in this WG.
Furthermore, we have close collaboration with academic partners
(universities, research centers) in Greece, Cyprus but also in the private
industry and we can surely deep dive in the subject, contribute to the
state of the art while in parallel support the academic perspective.
I would love to see others expressing their interest in the Smart
Contracts Working Group as Dan Selman did. It will be highly appreciated
if anybody in the TSC mailing group depending your expertise or your
respective fields of interest can reply to this email suggesting which
groups maybe will want to contribute, additional subjects should this
workgroup focus on, working products you would like to include etc. in
order to achieve a wider acceptance
Thank you all in advance,
Sofia
> Sofia, we will adding you to the agenda for next Thursday. You might
> want
> to update your proposal on the wiki as you receive feedback from this
> list.
> Here's the page for everyone's reference
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Smart+Contracts
>
> Per the calendar
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Calendar+of+Public+Meetings
> The next meeting with be on Thursday next week at 9am central time zone.
> I'm not sure which zone you are in.
>
> Also the Agendas for the TSC meetings are posted here in the mailing list.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Silona
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:35 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org
> <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sofia,
>>
>> I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a
>> smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts
>> are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there
>> remains
>> a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more
>> favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a
>> blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this
>> way
>> post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be
>> usefully
>> unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of
>> a
>> Smart Contract WG.
>>
>> I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be
>> useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working
>> group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it
>> would
>> be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the
>> group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios
>> -
>> whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I
>> feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in
>> the
>> way code is general.
>>
>> Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
>>
>> - Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
>> - Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded
>> in
>> a another language
>> - Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability
>> for formal methods)
>> - Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing
>> languages
>> - Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
>> - Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented',
>> functional,
>> process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special
>> purpose languages
>> - Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel
>> processing
>> in a single block)
>> - Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
>> - Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
>> - Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e.
>> 'law')
>> - What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
>> - What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and
>> agreements?
>> - At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and
>> execution of agreement?
>> - What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of
>> computation?
>> - Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural
>> language,
>> business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
>> - Data structures and state
>> - Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags,
>> log-backed maps,
>> - How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
>> - Sharing state backends across execution engines
>> - Conflict-free and additive data structures
>> - Privacy
>> - Multi-party secure computation
>> - Differential privacy
>> - Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments
>> and witnesses
>> - Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
>> - WASM/eWASM
>> - EVM
>> - WebIDL
>>
>> I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find
>> practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use
>> within
>> our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state
>> of
>> the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could
>> feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
>>
>> Silas
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send
>>> an
>>> email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be
>>> a
>>> meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is
>>> described
>>> in the process. Thank you
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Sofia Terzi
>>>
>>> Send from android Sony Xperia
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Silona Bonewald
> VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
> Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
> https://calendly.com/silona
> <https://calendly.intercom-mail.com/via/e?ob=RRMqh933U%2Bt%2BEhrgpH53uviTcG4ZvMgc4KfknzZd6p8%3D&h=25213923f3378129e3fd7c2bfce0b9a73a7febfd-19558403869>
> The Linux Foundation
> http://hyperledger.org
>
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Hello Vipin, Really interesting link indeed, it nails down some very important aspects regarding legality as you said, but it is not limited to this, the operation, technical and cybersecurity risks are broad enough to be applied almost to all kinds of SCs! And your paper of the architecture WG covers sufficiently all the platforms, great work. That’s the quality I hope we’ll set in this WG, your participation and support will be pivotal for the outcomes of this WG Best, Sofia
From: vipin bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2019 2:44 AM
To: sterzi@...
Cc: Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>; Silas Davis <silas@...>; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Smart contracts working group Hello Sofia, I welcome the Smart Contract WG into the Hyperledger fold and kudos to you for proposing it; we have had a paper out of the architecture WG on this topic, but having a separate Working Group to talk about this would be great and I am interested in participating. Silas had a pretty comprehensive list of topics on the subject and Dan Selman of course is an authority on this topic as well. So you have very good supporters and many more will join your group once it starts going. This is important since CFTC is the main regulator in the US dealing with certain products (Commodities and Futures and maybe derivatives). This coupled with work that ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) is doing on the topic with CDM(Common Domain Model) will certainly be of interest as some parts of the CDM will need to be implemented with smart contracts. Of course smart contracts are relevant in many other domains and maybe for enforcing some cross cutting concerns like authentication/authorization logging querying encryption etc. Looking forward to the working group formation and discussions. On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:36 AM <sterzi@...> wrote: @Silas and @Silona
These are great points and great help, thank you! I will definitely update
my proposal on the wiki to include the feedback. Many of the research
topics you mentioned are of great interest to us and the work we are doing
in CERTH, while the 'code is law' misconception is surely causing problems
to the SCs adoption. The group can focus on these topics and try to
clarify them, setting the grounds to communicate these concepts correctly
to people and markets involved. In addition to that and according to our
expertise regarding the implementation of many solutions with smart
contracts in the energy, healthcare (electronic health records, EHR cross
border interoperability), supply chain but also cybersecurity areas we
believe that we could offer extended expertise in this WG.
Furthermore, we have close collaboration with academic partners
(universities, research centers) in Greece, Cyprus but also in the private
industry and we can surely deep dive in the subject, contribute to the
state of the art while in parallel support the academic perspective.
I would love to see others expressing their interest in the Smart
Contracts Working Group as Dan Selman did. It will be highly appreciated
if anybody in the TSC mailing group depending your expertise or your
respective fields of interest can reply to this email suggesting which
groups maybe will want to contribute, additional subjects should this
workgroup focus on, working products you would like to include etc. in
order to achieve a wider acceptance
Thank you all in advance,
Sofia
> Sofia, we will adding you to the agenda for next Thursday. You might
> want
> to update your proposal on the wiki as you receive feedback from this
> list.
> Here's the page for everyone's reference
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Smart+Contracts
>
> Per the calendar
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Calendar+of+Public+Meetings
> The next meeting with be on Thursday next week at 9am central time zone.
> I'm not sure which zone you are in.
>
> Also the Agendas for the TSC meetings are posted here in the mailing list.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Silona
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:35 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org
> <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sofia,
>>
>> I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a
>> smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts
>> are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there
>> remains
>> a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more
>> favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a
>> blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this
>> way
>> post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be
>> usefully
>> unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of
>> a
>> Smart Contract WG.
>>
>> I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be
>> useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working
>> group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it
>> would
>> be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the
>> group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios
>> -
>> whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I
>> feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in
>> the
>> way code is general.
>>
>> Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
>>
>> - Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
>> - Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded
>> in
>> a another language
>> - Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability
>> for formal methods)
>> - Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing
>> languages
>> - Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
>> - Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented',
>> functional,
>> process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special
>> purpose languages
>> - Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel
>> processing
>> in a single block)
>> - Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
>> - Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
>> - Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e.
>> 'law')
>> - What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
>> - What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and
>> agreements?
>> - At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and
>> execution of agreement?
>> - What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of
>> computation?
>> - Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural
>> language,
>> business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
>> - Data structures and state
>> - Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags,
>> log-backed maps,
>> - How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
>> - Sharing state backends across execution engines
>> - Conflict-free and additive data structures
>> - Privacy
>> - Multi-party secure computation
>> - Differential privacy
>> - Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments
>> and witnesses
>> - Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
>> - WASM/eWASM
>> - EVM
>> - WebIDL
>>
>> I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find
>> practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use
>> within
>> our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state
>> of
>> the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could
>> feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
>>
>> Silas
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send
>>> an
>>> email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be
>>> a
>>> meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is
>>> described
>>> in the process. Thank you
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Sofia Terzi
>>>
>>> Send from android Sony Xperia
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Silona Bonewald
> VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
> Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
> https://calendly.com/silona
> <https://calendly.intercom-mail.com/via/e?ob=RRMqh933U%2Bt%2BEhrgpH53uviTcG4ZvMgc4KfknzZd6p8%3D&h=25213923f3378129e3fd7c2bfce0b9a73a7febfd-19558403869>
> The Linux Foundation
> http://hyperledger.org
>
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Hi Mohan, I am working an update for the proposal, I will definitely include Design Patterns for SCs in the topics, will publish it in a couple of days to the TSC mailing list. Thank you for the information and your participation, we're all in this together J Best, Sofia
From: Mohan Venkataraman <mohan.venkataraman@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2019 1:17 PM
To: Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...>
Cc: sterzi@...; Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>; Silas Davis <silas@...>; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Smart contracts working group I am a bit behind in my emails but this is definitely a good idea. I had presented Smart Contract Design Patterns during the Global Forum in Basel last December based on my exposure to both Chaincode and Solidity Smart Contracts. One of the topics to add to the proposal might be Design Patterns for Smart Contracts. I will be glad to be part of your WG if this goes through. Mohan Venkataraman 
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 7:44 PM Vipin Bharathan <vipinsun@...> wrote: Hello Sofia, I welcome the Smart Contract WG into the Hyperledger fold and kudos to you for proposing it; we have had a paper out of the architecture WG on this topic, but having a separate Working Group to talk about this would be great and I am interested in participating. Silas had a pretty comprehensive list of topics on the subject and Dan Selman of course is an authority on this topic as well. So you have very good supporters and many more will join your group once it starts going. This is important since CFTC is the main regulator in the US dealing with certain products (Commodities and Futures and maybe derivatives). This coupled with work that ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) is doing on the topic with CDM(Common Domain Model) will certainly be of interest as some parts of the CDM will need to be implemented with smart contracts. Of course smart contracts are relevant in many other domains and maybe for enforcing some cross cutting concerns like authentication/authorization logging querying encryption etc. Looking forward to the working group formation and discussions. On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:36 AM <sterzi@...> wrote: @Silas and @Silona
These are great points and great help, thank you! I will definitely update
my proposal on the wiki to include the feedback. Many of the research
topics you mentioned are of great interest to us and the work we are doing
in CERTH, while the 'code is law' misconception is surely causing problems
to the SCs adoption. The group can focus on these topics and try to
clarify them, setting the grounds to communicate these concepts correctly
to people and markets involved. In addition to that and according to our
expertise regarding the implementation of many solutions with smart
contracts in the energy, healthcare (electronic health records, EHR cross
border interoperability), supply chain but also cybersecurity areas we
believe that we could offer extended expertise in this WG.
Furthermore, we have close collaboration with academic partners
(universities, research centers) in Greece, Cyprus but also in the private
industry and we can surely deep dive in the subject, contribute to the
state of the art while in parallel support the academic perspective.
I would love to see others expressing their interest in the Smart
Contracts Working Group as Dan Selman did. It will be highly appreciated
if anybody in the TSC mailing group depending your expertise or your
respective fields of interest can reply to this email suggesting which
groups maybe will want to contribute, additional subjects should this
workgroup focus on, working products you would like to include etc. in
order to achieve a wider acceptance
Thank you all in advance,
Sofia
> Sofia, we will adding you to the agenda for next Thursday. You might
> want
> to update your proposal on the wiki as you receive feedback from this
> list.
> Here's the page for everyone's reference
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Smart+Contracts
>
> Per the calendar
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Calendar+of+Public+Meetings
> The next meeting with be on Thursday next week at 9am central time zone.
> I'm not sure which zone you are in.
>
> Also the Agendas for the TSC meetings are posted here in the mailing list.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Silona
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:35 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org
> <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sofia,
>>
>> I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a
>> smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts
>> are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there
>> remains
>> a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more
>> favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a
>> blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this
>> way
>> post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be
>> usefully
>> unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of
>> a
>> Smart Contract WG.
>>
>> I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be
>> useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working
>> group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it
>> would
>> be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the
>> group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios
>> -
>> whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I
>> feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in
>> the
>> way code is general.
>>
>> Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
>>
>> - Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
>> - Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded
>> in
>> a another language
>> - Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability
>> for formal methods)
>> - Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing
>> languages
>> - Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
>> - Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented',
>> functional,
>> process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special
>> purpose languages
>> - Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel
>> processing
>> in a single block)
>> - Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
>> - Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
>> - Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e.
>> 'law')
>> - What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
>> - What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and
>> agreements?
>> - At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and
>> execution of agreement?
>> - What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of
>> computation?
>> - Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural
>> language,
>> business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
>> - Data structures and state
>> - Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags,
>> log-backed maps,
>> - How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
>> - Sharing state backends across execution engines
>> - Conflict-free and additive data structures
>> - Privacy
>> - Multi-party secure computation
>> - Differential privacy
>> - Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments
>> and witnesses
>> - Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
>> - WASM/eWASM
>> - EVM
>> - WebIDL
>>
>> I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find
>> practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use
>> within
>> our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state
>> of
>> the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could
>> feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
>>
>> Silas
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send
>>> an
>>> email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be
>>> a
>>> meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is
>>> described
>>> in the process. Thank you
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Sofia Terzi
>>>
>>> Send from android Sony Xperia
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Silona Bonewald
> VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
> Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
> https://calendly.com/silona
> <https://calendly.intercom-mail.com/via/e?ob=RRMqh933U%2Bt%2BEhrgpH53uviTcG4ZvMgc4KfknzZd6p8%3D&h=25213923f3378129e3fd7c2bfce0b9a73a7febfd-19558403869>
> The Linux Foundation
> http://hyperledger.org
>
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Suma
This is very timely.
i've been very interested in the potential legal challenges around smart contracts - How do smart contracts need to evolve to a point where they can be backed by legal and actually defended in a court of law? Should there be standardization organizations that work on this?
And also the possibilities around standardization of compliance implementations. For example, would it make sense to have standard smart contracts offered around, say HIPAA compliance that people can just optionally install with the fabric, for example?
SUMABALA NAIR
Software Engineer, Watson IoT Blockchain
----- Original message -----
From: "Dan Selman via Lists.Hyperledger.Org" <dan=clause.io@...>
Sent by: tsc@...
To: silas@...
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Smart contracts working group
Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 4:49 AM
Sound good Silas. I’d be happy to contribute and to represent Accord Project.
Dan
Hi Sofia,
I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there remains a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this way post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be usefully unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of a Smart Contract WG.
I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it would be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios - whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in the way code is general.
Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
- Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
- Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded in a another language
- Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability for formal methods)
- Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing languages
- Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
- Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented', functional, process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special purpose languages
- Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel processing in a single block)
- Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
- Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
- Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e. 'law')
- What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
- What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and agreements?
- At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and execution of agreement?
- What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of computation?
- Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural language, business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
- Data structures and state
- Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags, log-backed maps,
- How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
- Sharing state backends across execution engines
- Conflict-free and additive data structures
- Privacy
- Multi-party secure computation
- Differential privacy
- Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments and witnesses
- Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
- WASM/eWASM
- EVM
- WebIDL
I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use within our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state of the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
Silas On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi < sterzi@...> wrote: Hello,
I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send an email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be a meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is described in the process. Thank you
Best,
Sofia Terzi
Send from android Sony Xperia
--
![]() | Dan Selman
CTO | | | |
| |
| This message is confidential and its contents shall not be distributed to any third parties without the permission of the sender. Similarly any documents that are marked as private and confidential or similar are strictly not for distribution or disclosure to any unaddressed parties, without exception. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Re: Smart contracts working group
Hello Sofia,
I welcome the Smart Contract WG into the Hyperledger fold and kudos to you for proposing it; we have had a paper out of the architecture WG on this topic, but having a separate Working Group to talk about this would be great and I am interested in participating.
Silas had a pretty comprehensive list of topics on the subject and Dan Selman of course is an authority on this topic as well. So you have very good supporters and many more will join your group once it starts going.
This is important since CFTC is the main regulator in the US dealing with certain products (Commodities and Futures and maybe derivatives). This coupled with work that ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) is doing on the topic with CDM(Common Domain Model) will certainly be of interest as some parts of the CDM will need to be implemented with smart contracts.
Of course smart contracts are relevant in many other domains and maybe for enforcing some cross cutting concerns like authentication/authorization logging querying encryption etc.
Looking forward to the working group formation and discussions. Best, Vipin
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:36 AM < sterzi@...> wrote: @Silas and @Silona
These are great points and great help, thank you! I will definitely update
my proposal on the wiki to include the feedback. Many of the research
topics you mentioned are of great interest to us and the work we are doing
in CERTH, while the 'code is law' misconception is surely causing problems
to the SCs adoption. The group can focus on these topics and try to
clarify them, setting the grounds to communicate these concepts correctly
to people and markets involved. In addition to that and according to our
expertise regarding the implementation of many solutions with smart
contracts in the energy, healthcare (electronic health records, EHR cross
border interoperability), supply chain but also cybersecurity areas we
believe that we could offer extended expertise in this WG.
Furthermore, we have close collaboration with academic partners
(universities, research centers) in Greece, Cyprus but also in the private
industry and we can surely deep dive in the subject, contribute to the
state of the art while in parallel support the academic perspective.
I would love to see others expressing their interest in the Smart
Contracts Working Group as Dan Selman did. It will be highly appreciated
if anybody in the TSC mailing group depending your expertise or your
respective fields of interest can reply to this email suggesting which
groups maybe will want to contribute, additional subjects should this
workgroup focus on, working products you would like to include etc. in
order to achieve a wider acceptance
Thank you all in advance,
Sofia
> Sofia, we will adding you to the agenda for next Thursday. You might
> want
> to update your proposal on the wiki as you receive feedback from this
> list.
> Here's the page for everyone's reference
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Smart+Contracts
>
> Per the calendar
> https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Calendar+of+Public+Meetings
> The next meeting with be on Thursday next week at 9am central time zone.
> I'm not sure which zone you are in.
>
> Also the Agendas for the TSC meetings are posted here in the mailing list.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Silona
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:35 AM Silas Davis via Lists.Hyperledger.Org
> <silas=monax.io@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sofia,
>>
>> I took a look at your proposal. My immediate reaction to the idea of a
>> smart contracts working group is that it is a good idea. Smart contracts
>> are the thing that attracted me to blockchain personally, but there
>> remains
>> a level of equivocation about what they are. The pragmatic model more
>> favoured in Hyperledger seems to be 'they are just code that runs on a
>> blockchain', the straw man model (since I think few people think this
>> way
>> post-DAO) is 'code is law', in fact probably the concept could be
>> usefully
>> unbundled, so I like the suggestion of a taxonomy as a primary output of
>> a
>> Smart Contract WG.
>>
>> I also think, as with many proposals to the TSC, I think it would be
>> useful to understand where the boundaries of such a group lie. A working
>> group based in the model smart contracts as 'just code' seems like it
>> would
>> be far too general so I wonder how we could structure the mission of the
>> group to have some focus. In terms of use cases, stories, and scenarios
>> -
>> whilst these are clearly a background to the usage of smart contracts I
>> feel these topics are better covered in other groups and are general in
>> the
>> way code is general.
>>
>> Some research topics and separation I would be interested in are:
>>
>> - Models of and mechanism for computation, such as:
>> - Stack machines vs automata vs manipulating algebraic types embedded
>> in
>> a another language
>> - Scope for less expressive languages (that may have more tractability
>> for formal methods)
>> - Execution determinism, and sources of non-determinism in existing
>> languages
>> - Cost models for metering computation (e.g. gas)
>> - Paradigms for smart contracts - e.g. 'identity-oriented',
>> functional,
>> process-oriented - extent to which smart contracts benefit from special
>> purpose languages
>> - Parallelism of execution, state independence (i.e. parallel
>> processing
>> in a single block)
>> - Formal guarantees on outputs of smart contracts
>> - Smart contract packaging, code reuse, and dependency auditing
>> - Smart contracts as representatives of obligations and fulfilment (i.e.
>> 'law')
>> - What properties should smart contracts with 'legal charge' have?
>> - What relations can smart contracts have with actual contracts and
>> agreements?
>> - At what scale to smart contracts best contribute to certainty and
>> execution of agreement?
>> - What relationship do legal smart contracts have to models of
>> computation?
>> - Generation of smart contracts from existing artefacts (natural
>> language,
>> business process, state machines, non smart-contract code)
>> - Data structures and state
>> - Verifiable and authenticated data structures - e.g. merkle dags,
>> log-backed maps,
>> - How best to expose through smart contract languages/libraries
>> - Sharing state backends across execution engines
>> - Conflict-free and additive data structures
>> - Privacy
>> - Multi-party secure computation
>> - Differential privacy
>> - Zero knowledge and practical building blocks - types of commitments
>> and witnesses
>> - Tooling and compilers for existing virtual machines
>> - WASM/eWASM
>> - EVM
>> - WebIDL
>>
>> I think for a Hyperledger working group a good output would be to find
>> practical ways to connect stuff 'out there' with things we could use
>> within
>> our implementations. I'd like to see a group that could survey the state
>> of
>> the art and academic content and produce 'Requests To Build' that could
>> feed into feature planning on the frameworks.
>>
>> Silas
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 23:24, Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have made a proposal for the smart contracts working group and send
>>> an
>>> email before a couple of days. I wanted to know if there is going to be
>>> a
>>> meeting tomorrow in order to present it to the committee as it is
>>> described
>>> in the process. Thank you
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Sofia Terzi
>>>
>>> Send from android Sony Xperia
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Silona Bonewald
> VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
> Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
> https://calendly.com/silona
> <https://calendly.intercom-mail.com/via/e?ob=RRMqh933U%2Bt%2BEhrgpH53uviTcG4ZvMgc4KfknzZd6p8%3D&h=25213923f3378129e3fd7c2bfce0b9a73a7febfd-19558403869>
> The Linux Foundation
> http://hyperledger.org
>
|
|
|
