Comparison
Ripple payment protocol is a system that deals with real time gross settlement, remittance network and currency exchange based on technology company. This was released in the year 2012 and was written in C++ language. The interledger protocol does not follows scalability solution (Schwartz 2016). The aim of Interledger protocol is to facilitate the payment and focuses completely on payments across the disparate ledger types.
It is found that in ILP, the notaries that are related with the connector does not generally support the changes within the membership and does not allow for the flexible weightage that are between the notaries (Hope-Bailie and Thomas 2016). On the other hand, it is found that IBC are mainly designed for the various blockchains. It has been found that various validators generally have different weights where there maybe change in membership throughout the whole course of blockchain.
The payment within the receiver of ILP have to be online in the lightening network so that confirmation could be sent to the sender. The validator sets blockchain for the receiver that is considered to be token transfer over the IBC and it is responsible for providing confirmation appropriately.
It is identified that most of the striking difference between connector of the ILP is that it does not have the responsibility of keeping the influential state regarding payments whereas it is found that in Cosmos, the validation of hub is considered as the state authority of IBC token transfer. This is considered as the vital innovation that allows to secure the transfer of token asymmetrically from one zone to other (Belotti et al. 2018).
An exchange order book is required for supporting the interledger payments within ILP as asymmetric transfer of coins does not occur from one ledger to other ledger. There is only exchange of value or the market equivalents during the interledger payments.
The main difference that is to be highlighted is that cosmos does huge number of things that is possible for the Cosmos as because it is a block chain and tender mint is the software (Hope-Bailie and Thomas 2016). The main hub for the block chains that are present for the internet, which would be helpful are created mainly by tender mint.
The byzantine fault- tolerant is then replicated by the state machine so that any programing language would fit perfectly into the scheme. This would enable all the contents that would help in development of efficient communication for the system (Roos, et al. 2017). The state is replicated across all the nodes for the development.
Tendermints Cosmos is referred to as a blockchain technology based architecture which is designed for utilizing proof of stake as an alternative of proof of work such as bitcoins and ethereum. Certain securities perspectives are also there that are dependent on tendermint technology (Wall and Malm 2016). The collection of cosmos hub is known as core blockchain and this is powered by the Tendermint. There are many other blockchain those are wiped up to the cosmos.
Ripple Interledger Payment Protocol
The blockchain network can enable all application such as exchanges that is not trading to one Cryptocurrency for the others. The tendermint blockchain are one of the most feasible alternatives for high energy consumed blockchain such as bitcoins, ethereum etc. The aim of the network is to offer strong consistency to the open system (Pisa and Juden 2017). It is the combination of two different components such as validators set which generates blocks and an accurate selection strategy which dynamically selects validator’s node. The accurateness of actual tendermint protocol is never analyzed professionally from the computing aspect. The actual tendermint verifies the termination consensus by bringing smaller amount of twist in the algorithms.
Currently, the focuses of computing academic scholars are moving towards the theoretical perspectives of blockchain technology (de Vilaca Burgos et al. 2017). It helps to motivate the intriguing popular blockchain claims like bitcoins, ethereum etc. This specific claim has been refute through the well-known impossibilities resulting distributed computing. The pseudo codes of bitcoins and its analysis over the agreement perspectives considering the synchronous communication model. In order to combat the issues of bitcoins another blockchain has been recommended which is Bitcoins-NG (Haroarson 2018). This is a combination of proof of work blockchain and proof of work free blockchain. Though, the drawbacks of the bitcoins are also inherited by the Bitcoins-NG.
The cosmos blockchain is one of the most comprehensive guides. The first issue comes in the scalability field of interoperability and scalability (Kostrikova 2017). The issues associated to cosmos internet of blockchain solve the issues and brought the blockchain in anther success level.
Ripple is a protocol whose purpose is to facilitate all financial transaction. In order to transfer emails a list of rule allows all the users for making transactions over the internet services. The goal of ripple is to create a link between the existing network payments those are independent in nature (Roos, et al. 2017). In addition to this, it requires serious back office for creating connection among them. Mainly in the banking sectors this kind of connections are built. The ripple connect is the protocol’s element that successfully manages all communication between the different parts. In case of transfer this is the very initial step. Interledger is referred to as an open protocol that is suitable to send payments throughout different ledgers. This protocol acts as a router over the internet, connector money packet routes across the payment network and it is independent in nature (Moreno-Sanchez, Zafar and Kate 2016). In other words, the Interledger protocol and ripple can successfully enable the money network interoperability. The current payment networks are disconnected and siloed in nature. The process of payment transaction has become much easier these days within a country. Though, it is sometimes stands difficult while sending payment from one ledge to another. The current connections are extremely expensive, slow and manual. The process takes place in the transition and application layer.
The Interledger protocol is limited in scope as it provides the functions that are required for delivering payments with the help of interconnected system of ledgers so that it could be transferred from source to destination. It comprises of marginal requirements that are required for underlying ledgers but there is no inclusion of other services that are mainly available in protocols for payment.
The main motive of Tendermints cosmos is to provide strong stability for the open systems and it is the combination of different components that is validators set and accurate selection strategy. The validators set is used for generating blocks and selection strategy is used dynamically for selecting the node of validator.
After analyzing the details of these two protocols it has been found that, the Interledger protocol does not provide a scalable solution to the users. On the other hand, Tendermints Cosmos provides a scalable solution to all the users. It also provides an ad-hoc interoperation among the different ledger systems in a very loosely connected bilateral network. Alike the lightening network, the main purpose of utilizing the IPL is to facilitate the payment network (Kostrikova 2017). However, it mainly focused on payment processing throughout the disparate types of ledger as well as it extends the mechanism of atomic transaction for including not just hash lock but notaries quorum, this is also known as atomic transport protocol. In order to enforce atomicity in the inter ledger transaction approach the process of latter mechanism is same as the tendermint light client’s SPV mechanism (Haroarson 2018). An illustration of difference concerning ILP and Cosmos has been provided in the section as below:
- The membership changes are not professionally supported by the notaries of connector in ILP. It addition to this, it does not allow flexible weighting in between the notaries (Pisa and Juden 2017). In other words, IBC is a well designed mainly for the blockchain where all the validators may have different weights, where the membership can be changed over blockchain courses. In the lightening network, online application should be used for the payment receiver in ILP to send confirmation acknowledgement to the sender. During token transfer within IBC validators set of blockchain, the receiver plays an important role to provide proper confirmation and not to the receiving users.
- One of the major difference in ILP connector is that these are not responsible to keep the authoritative state regarding payments but in case of cosmos the hub validators are authority of the states of IBC token transfers and authorizing amount of tokens that are being held by each of the zones (Wall and Malm 2016). This is an innovative basic which allows a secured asymmetric transmission of tokens from one zone to another (de Vilaca Burgos et al.2017). The analogs to ILP connectors in Cosmos are persistent as well as maximum secured blockchain ledger.
- The inter ledger process of payment in case of needs of ILP should be backed through the exchange order bookings because no asymmetric coin transfer from one ledger to another is there.
References
Ambili, K.N., Sindhu, M. and Sethumadhavan, M., 2017, August. On Federated and Proof Of Validation Based Consensus Algorithms In Blockchain. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 225, No. 1, p. 012198). IOP Publishing.
Belotti, M., Bozic, N., Pujolle, G. and Secci, S., 2018. A Vademecum on Blockchain Technologies: When, Which and How.
de Vilaca Burgos, A., de Oliveira Filho, J.D., Suares, M.V.C. and de Almeida, R.S., 2017. Distributed ledger technical research in Central Bank of Brazil.
Harðarson, A., 2018. Can Ripple disrupt the global payments market? (Doctoral dissertation).
Hope-Bailie, A. and Thomas, S., 2016, April. Interledger: Creating a standard for payments. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 281-282). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Kostrikova, N., 2017. OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS FOR APPLICATIONOF DISTRIBUTED LEDGERS IN THE CONTEXT OF EU DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY. European Integration Studies, (11), pp.160-172.
Moreno-Sanchez, P., Zafar, M.B. and Kate, A., 2016. Listening to whispers of ripple: Linking wallets and deanonymizing transactions in the ripple network. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2016(4), pp.436-453.
Pisa, M. and Juden, M., 2017. Blockchain and economic development: hype vs. reality. Center for Global Development Policy Paper, 107.
Roos, S., Moreno-Sanchez, P., Kate, A. and Goldberg, I., 2017. Settling Payments Fast and Private: Efficient Decentralized Routing for Path-Based Transactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05748.
Schwartz, E., 2016, April. A Payment Protocol of the Web, for the Web: Or, Finally Enabling Web Micropayments with the Interledger Protocol. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 279-280). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Thomas, S. and Schwartz, E., 2015. A protocol for interledger payments. URL https://interledger. org/interledger. pdf.
Wall, E. and Malm, G., 2016. Using Blockchain technology and smart contracts to create a distributed securities depository.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
