Further thoughts on Interoperability with Consensus Computers

Interoperability needs to be understood alongside two vectors: a) between consensus computers and b) with the real world of law and regulation.

Consensus Computers need to talk to one another, speak the same language, share the same characteristics and modularity stack-wide, see previous posts here and here. Consensus Computers also need to interact fully with current legal constructs. What a CC shows ownership-wise needs to be fully compatible with how ownership is construed in the real world.

Hence, I view interoperability needing to toe as closely as possible to a “magic” optimal line.  Too much focus on technology related interoperability oversimplifies the problem and risks pigeoning Consensus Computers to a restrictive “internet of value” mindset. In other words the transfer of ownership is not equal at all to the transfer of data. Transferring data is easy. Transferring ownership is eminently complex. Technology protocols cannot be developed in the abstract and without tie ins to the real world of law and regulatory oversight. Protocol design needs to incorporate in a very granular way real life legal domains. Therein lies the real power of true interoperability.

As such, any interoperable protocol needs to be developed with a careful consideration of both vectors.

Interoperability Optimal Frontier:


Screen Shot 2015-10-15 at 9.38.05 AM





You may also like

On the Universal Applicability of Consensus Ledgers
Open Letter: Open Standards & Consensus Ledgers
Latency, that dirty word.
Fiatcoin, redefining Banks and Banking

1 Response

  1. Chris Betz


    Totally agree.

    1/ Crucial thing is standardization of semantics and ontologies around contracts representing assets and properties. Vocabulary and meaning are everything in the legal realm. Any individual contract may be the intersection of several standards.

    The ecosystem would do well to leverage pre-existing, open standards already developed to accelerate issuance of new, and onboarding of pre-existing, securities for instance. Why create new ontologies when there has already been significant investment across industries …

    2/ As a smart contract is the intersection of counterparties, regs, value, events, triggers, states, etc., etc., I would add one more dimension…data/content interoperability. That would include information liquidity, architecture, availability, cleanliness,

    3/ Keep up the good work … enjoying the posts.

Leave a Reply