2 ms·

Yea, but intents in this case is solving a different problem, which is user just declares the outcome and the solvers figure out the execution, could be through

Yea, but intents in this case is solving a different problem, which is user just declares the outcome and the solvers figure out the execution, could be through ILP, DEXs, bridges, whatever is perfect at that moment

westurner 1y ago
With ILP, those cross-chain flows are auditably accounted for in one transaction. DEX and bridges (and banks with traditional asset ledgers) could implement ILP to become ILP Connectors. ILP does trustless atomic swaps with Hashed Timelock Agreements (HTAs).
- developerayo 1y ago
  Completely true, but who decides which rails to execute a txn on? And that's where solvers would come in. There are many ways to architect this, just primarly depends on the problem being solved and what solution is optimal at scale
  - westurner 1y ago
    Pathfinding is based on (lowest) path costs. Solvers could be implemented as ILP Senders. ILP has trust lines: how much [money] each party trusts each other party [with] is up to them. Whether parties obey KYC/AML in pathfinding might be the higher risk part; mustn't the system disallow lower cost but higher risk paths
    - developerayo 1y ago
      I do agree! But really, it depends on the exact problem being solved and the constraints you're optimizing for, we could collaborate on a joint article and go more in-depthly into these two, let me know what you think
      - westurner 1y ago
        Here's this about x402 and ILP and HTAs: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45348242 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45348242 Docs, Specs, Use Cases; ILP terminology from Rafiki: https://rafiki.dev/overview/concepts/interledger/ https://rafiki.dev/overview/concepts/interledger/ : > Packet, Peer, Connectors (Sender, Connector, Receiver), Payment pointer, SPSP Simple Payment Setup Protocol, STREAM Protocol, STREAM receipt ILP finds routes from Senders through Connectors to ILP Receivers. An ILP Connector does Pathfinding, Quoting, and Forwarding. There are ILP Addresses, but there is no global routing table.

westurner 1y ago

With ILP, those cross-chain flows are auditably accounted for in one transaction. DEX and bridges (and banks with traditional asset ledgers) could implement ILP to become ILP Connectors. ILP does trustless atomic swaps with Hashed Timelock Agreements (HTAs).

developerayo 1y ago
Completely true, but who decides which rails to execute a txn on? And that's where solvers would come in. There are many ways to architect this, just primarly depends on the problem being solved and what solution is optimal at scale
- westurner 1y ago
  Pathfinding is based on (lowest) path costs. Solvers could be implemented as ILP Senders. ILP has trust lines: how much [money] each party trusts each other party [with] is up to them. Whether parties obey KYC/AML in pathfinding might be the higher risk part; mustn't the system disallow lower cost but higher risk paths
  - developerayo 1y ago
    I do agree! But really, it depends on the exact problem being solved and the constraints you're optimizing for, we could collaborate on a joint article and go more in-depthly into these two, let me know what you think
    - westurner 1y ago
      Here's this about x402 and ILP and HTAs: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45348242 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45348242 Docs, Specs, Use Cases; ILP terminology from Rafiki: https://rafiki.dev/overview/concepts/interledger/ https://rafiki.dev/overview/concepts/interledger/ : > Packet, Peer, Connectors (Sender, Connector, Receiver), Payment pointer, SPSP Simple Payment Setup Protocol, STREAM Protocol, STREAM receipt ILP finds routes from Senders through Connectors to ILP Receivers. An ILP Connector does Pathfinding, Quoting, and Forwarding. There are ILP Addresses, but there is no global routing table.