Date   

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...)


--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019

Silas Davis
 

@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

Vipin Bharathan
 

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.

--

Silona Bonewald

VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger

Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona

The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


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.

--

Silona Bonewald

VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger

Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona

The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Re: TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019

Arnaud Le Hors
 

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 PM
Subject:        [Hyperledger TSC] TSC Agenda for 31 January 2019
Sent 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/silona
The 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.

--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


Contributors Summits (previously known as Maintainers Summits)

Tracy Kuhrt <tkuhrt@...>
 

Based on the TSC call last week, I renamed the Maintainers Summits to Contributors Summits, as well as, other changes. You can find the updated wiki page at https://wiki2.hyperledger.org/display/events/Contributors+Summits. Please review and provide your feedback via the Wiki.

----
Tracy Kuhrt
Community Architect, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
tkuhrt@...
Hyperledger Chat: @tkuhrt


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
Phone: 1-5122866731
 
 

----- 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
   206.588.6054 - work 
   425.417.8255- mobile 
    www.businesslearninginc.com
 
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:36 AM Suma <sumapnair@...> wrote:
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
Phone: 1-5122866731
 
 
----- 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
 
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:35, 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

 

 

 

 

--
 

Dan Selman

CTO

Email: dan@...

Mobile: +44 7785-792717

clause.io

         

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
   206.588.6054 - work 
   425.417.8255- mobile 
    www.businesslearninginc.com


On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:36 AM Suma <sumapnair@...> wrote:
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
Phone: 1-5122866731
 
 
----- 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
 
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:35, 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

 

 

 

 

--

Dan Selman

CTO

Email: dan@...

Mobile: +44 7785-792717

clause.io

    social

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)

Jonathan Levi (HACERA)
 

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

On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:41 AM, Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:

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)

Brian Behlendorf
 

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


Hyperledger Composer Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 01/31/2019 #tsc-project-update #cal-reminder

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)

Vipin Bharathan
 

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

Min Yu
 

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

(tel) 919.806.3535 | (cell) 919.749.3167 |
Research Triangle Park, NC | Atlanta, GA | Hyderabad, India
www.chainyard.com
http://bits2byte.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/movee97

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail


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. 

I have the following link from a LabCFTC paper; most of it is rather elementary; but after page 16, it gets interesting; especially CFTC's views regarding legality of smart contracts. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/LabCFTC_PrimerSmartContracts112718_0.pdf

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

Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>
 

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. 

 

I have the following link from a LabCFTC paper; most of it is rather elementary; but after page 16, it gets interesting; especially CFTC's views regarding legality of smart contracts. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/LabCFTC_PrimerSmartContracts112718_0.pdf

 

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

Sofia Terzi <sterzi@...>
 

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

 

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

(tel) 919.806.3535 | (cell) 919.749.3167 |
Research Triangle Park, NC | Atlanta, GA | Hyderabad, India
www.chainyard.com
http://bits2byte.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/movee97

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 

 

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. 

 

I have the following link from a LabCFTC paper; most of it is rather elementary; but after page 16, it gets interesting; especially CFTC's views regarding legality of smart contracts. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/LabCFTC_PrimerSmartContracts112718_0.pdf

 

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

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
Phone: 1-5122866731
 
 

----- 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
 
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:35, 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

 

 

 

 

--

Dan Selman

CTO

Email: dan@...

Mobile: +44 7785-792717

clause.io

    social

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

Vipin Bharathan
 

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. 

I have the following link from a LabCFTC paper; most of it is rather elementary; but after page 16, it gets interesting; especially CFTC's views regarding legality of smart contracts. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/LabCFTC_PrimerSmartContracts112718_0.pdf

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

sterzi@...
 

@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

1841 - 1860 of 3844