1.
Interchain Development And
Cross-Chain Protocols
Gilbert Verdian

2.
The Internet
Network of inter-connected networks
to transact Information

3.
The Internet Tribes
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/osi-the-internet-that-wasnt
OSI TCP/IP
Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)
1977-1983 1983 to today

4.
OSI
1977: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) committee on Open Systems
Interconnection (OSI) is formed
May 1983: ISO publishes “ISO 7498: The Basic Reference Model for Open Systems
Interconnection” as an international standard
1984: Individual OSI standards for transport protocols, electronic mail, electronic directories,
network management, and many others.
Digital Equipment Corp., Honeywell, and IBM were by then heavily invested in OSI, as was the
European Economic Community and national governments throughout Europe, North America, and
Asia.
1985 - National Research Council recommendation to transition away from TCP/IP and toward OSI.
The Department of Commerce issued a mandate in 1988 that the OSI standard be used in all
computers purchased by U.S. government agencies after August 1990.
By the late 1980s, frustration with OSI’s slow development had reached a boiling point.
Fatal flaw, ironically, grew from its commitment to openness. 4

5.
TCP/IP
Internet was a Research Network - Commercial traffic or for-profit service providers
were banned until 1992.
1980: U.S. Department of Defense publishes “Standards for the Internet Protocol and
Transmission Control Protocol.”
January 1983: U.S. Department of Defense’s mandated use of TCP/IP on the
ARPANET signals the “birth of the Internet.”
1991: Tim Berners-Lee announces public release of the World Wide Web application.
1992: U.S. National Science Foundation revises policies to allow commercial traffic
over the Internet.
1992: In a “palace revolt,” Internet engineers reject the ISO ConnectionLess Network
Protocol as a replacement for IP version 4 5

6.
The problem with OSI was lack of Openness,
Adoption and Proprietary Technology
• OSI protocols were overwhelmingly unappealing for actual use.
• They were developed by committee, so they were more complicated.
• More complicated meant more cost to implement.
• More development cost meant more incentive to keep implementations proprietary.
• Proprietary implementations meant fewer opportunities for reuse and cross-
fertilization, and also fewer implementations.
• Fewer implementations meant less opportunity for proving interoperability.
• And on top of it all, just to play in the OSI game, you had to pay through the nose for
copies of the standards
With all that against it, it was ONLY massive government interference (in the form of
mandates and government support of telecom industries) that caused OSI
implementations to exist at all, and they were generally closed, proprietary,
incomplete, expensive, and late
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/osi-the-internet-that-wasnt
6

7.
How we got the Internet of today
• TCP/IP was open and accessible, whereas OSI was "open" only in name
• TCP/IP, the definitions were free, and in most cases multiple implementations
were available for study, if not actual reuse.
• TCP/IP's success was driven bottom-up, by widespread adoption in LOCAL
networks and an industry of hardware and computer companies that used those
protocol definitions.
• The Internet was supposed to be Decentralised, by its original design.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/osi-the-internet-that-wasnt
7
“Birth of the Internet” - 1 January 1983, ARPA stopped supporting the ARPANET
host protocol, forcing contractors to adopt TCP/IP if they wanted to stay connected

8.
TCP/IP was Simpler
8

9.
Sarah Jeong
The Internet of today?

10.
Blockchain

11.
For the first time, we can honour the
original vision of the Internet to create
an open, interoperable and trusted
network for people, machines and data
to operate on, but without the original
flaw of having to know and trust
everyone within the network.
We can trust the network without the
need to know and trust each other.
11

12.
Blockchain:
We’re doing
it wrong
12

13.
The problem with
Blockchain today is lack of
Openness, Adoption and
Proprietary Technology
13

14.
2009 20181950s 1989-94
The Internet of Trust
Satoshi Paper
Networks are evolving
14

15.
• Creating more Value
• Trust the Network
• Human-to-human Trust
• Machine-to-Machine
Trust
Centralised Web is becoming obsolete
15

16.
Why are we building closed
proprietary networks in
isolation?

17.
1990’s: Online Service Providers - Proprietary Networks are limited
Compuserve Prodigy America Online
?
We’ve been here before
17

18.
18
Why are we building closed proprietary
blockchain networks in isolation?
Ripple
Stellar
Bitcoin
Ethereum
Hyperledger
AION
Polkadot
Cosmos
ICON
ARC
1st Generation of Blockchains Nth Generation of Blockchains Interoperability Blockchains
NEO
IOTA
Cardano
CORDA
Existing
Networks
JPMQUORUM

19.
19
Problem:
Blockchains are Closed Proprietary Networks
• Users & Apps of one network can not interact and talk to other networks
• Users & Apps are restricted and limited to their network and its technology
• No options to benefit from the other blockchain technologies
• No option to manage cost and fees
• Enterprises don’t like the above

20.
Blockchain needs Openness, Mass-
Adoption and Non-Proprietary
Technology

21.
The Current Blockchain approaches won’t work
• Another blockchain on top of another blockchain
• Another consensus protocol on top of an existing consensus protocol
• Proprietary or Single Network technology – All participants won’t
connect to the one blockchain
• Single use-case networks and protocols
• Restricted connectivity approaches
• Restricted scaling approaches and speed
- Side-chains, Virtual chains, Sharding
• Limitations and forcing mass User & Enterprise changes
We need Standards
21

22.
Why Standardise Blockchain?

23.
23
25/09/2018
Voluntarily developed ü
Developed by experts ü
Consensus-based ü
Documented good
practice
ü
Tested against ü
Voluntarily applied ü
What makes a Standard…?
Terminology
Guidance
Code of Practice
Specification
Test method

24.
24
Int’l Standards
(ISO, IEC)
Regional Standards
(EN)
National Standards, e.g.
British Standards (BS)
Sponsored standards – BSI PAS
Private and Consortia Standards
Corporate Technical Specifications
Professional Codes, Guidance, Best Practice
National, European and international standards
BSI as NSB manages
BS, EN & ISO, IEC
standards.
All EN and most
international
standards are
“adopted” as British
Standards
Private &
professional
standards,
codes and
guidance
PAS route to
national and
international
standards
Copyright © 2016 BSI. All rights reserved.

25.
25
Trade
associations
Certification
bodies
Government
departments
Enforcement
bodies
Consumer bodies
Professional
institutions
Standards users
Research
organisations
Public sector
Education
bodies
Standards Committee
National Standards Bodies do not write standards, the stakeholder committees do

26.
26
26
Developing Standards
Proposal Drafting
Public
Enquiry
Approval Publication
Draft
Standard
Approved
Standard

27.
27
The value of standards

28.
28
• Convening communities
• Building consensus of what good looks like
• Diffusing knowledge into the market
• Enabling scale-up and creation of supply
chains
• Levelling the playing field and avoiding
technology lock-in
• Building public and investor confidence in
new technologies and products.
Copyright © 2016 BSI. All rights reserved.
The role of standards in innovation

29.
China creates blockchain coalition ChinaLedger Union
The country’s blockchain industry organises distributed ledger-
based coalition in Beijing supported by Chinese National
Assembly and aiming to standardise the application of
blockchain.
- 20 April 2016
2015: Need for Blockchain ISO Standards
Russian Finance Firms Form Blockchain Consortium
A group of Russian banks and financial services
companies has formed a private-sector consortium
focused on blockchain applications.
- Coindesk 1 July 2016
Blockchain: Standards Wanted
Long reliant on collaborative standard-setting, the financial industry
looks for more of the same to realize the operational and risk-mitigation
potential of blockchain
- GARP – Global Association of Risk Professionals 8 April
2016
29

30.
The proposed work is to:
• define this standard
• create the mechanism to be a gateway to multiple blockchains
• create the governance framework
• have interoperability and compatibility with existing financial
standards
• provide legal and regulatory compliance to each transaction
across blockchains
• work towards a regulatory framework that provides a mix of legal
and technical rules
Proposed ISO Standard
2015: Proposed Blockchain ISO Standard
http://www.remitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ISO-TSP-258-Blockchain-and-Electronic-Distributed-Ledger-Technologies.pdf

31.
To address key areas such as:
• Terminology – Having a common language and terminology to define the
interoperability of blockchain
• Process and Methods – the mechanism and messaging standards around
inter-blockchain communication including routing.
• Trust and Interoperability – Develop the standards that incorporate
messaging protocols and methods to route, trust and connect to different
blockchains. Establishing a standard API (Application Programming Interface)
and set of routines and tools for building blockchain software and applications
• Privacy and Security – Ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of
users and entities are maintained. Embed compliance to money laundering
and KYC (know your customer) requirements.
• Authentication – ability to map blockchain transactions to individual users and
entities in a secure manner. Store credentials on the blockchain or
align/federate to a sidechain (off blockchain)
2015: Proposed Blockchain ISO Standard
31

32.
51 Countries working together to Standardise Blockchain
• WG1 Foundations - Terminology, Reference Architecture, taxonomy and ontology
• WG2 Security, Privacy and Identity
• WG3 Smart Contracts and their Applications
• JWG4 Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies and IT Security techniques
• SG2 Use Cases
• SG6 Governance of blockchain and distributed ledger technology systems
• SG7 Interoperability of blockchain and distributed ledger technology systems
2018: TC307 Blockchain ISO Standard
32
https://www.iso.org/committee/6266604.html

33.
ISO Development TC307 – 24-36 months
April 17 April 18 April 19 April 20
Terminology WG1
Tax/Reference Arch
Identity
SG7 Interoperability
Governance
Security & Privacy
Nov 17
Terminology
WG1 Foundations
WG2 Security, Privacy and Identity
SG6 Governance
Tokyo London
Use Cases
Smart Contracts WG3 Smart Contracts & their applications
Moscow
TC307 Roadmap
Sydney Dublin Visakhapatnam
JWG4 Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies and IT
Security techniques
33

34.
TC307 Standards under development
ISO/CD 22739 -- Terminology
ISO/NP TR 23244 -- Overview of privacy and personally identifiable information (PII) protection
ISO/NP TR 23245 -- Security risks and vulnerabilities
ISO/NP TR 23246 -- Overview of identity management using blockchain and distributed ledger
technologies
ISO/AWI 23257 -- Reference architecture
ISO/AWI TS 23258 -- Taxonomy and Ontology
ISO/AWI TS 23259 -- Legally binding smart contracts
ISO/NP TR 23455 -- Overview of and interactions between smart contracts in blockchain and
distributed ledger technology systems
ISO/NP TR 23576 -- Security of digital asset custodians
ISO/NP TR 23578 -- Discovery issues related to interoperability
34

35.
The Internet of Trust
Network of inter-connected blockchain networks
to transact Value

36.
36
We will be transacting with Value not Information

37.
37
We’ve built Overledger an OS overlay to
inter-connect blockchains & networks
Overledger
Ripple
Stellar
Bitcoin
Ethereum
Hyperledger
AION
Polkadot
Cosmos
ICON
ARC
1st Generation of Blockchains Nth Generation of Blockchains Interoperability Blockchains
NEO
IOTA
Cardano
CORDA
Existing
Networks
JPMQUORUM
37
• Openness – Open-source adoptable approach like TCP/IP, respecting the rules of the
underlying blockchains
• Interoperable – Connecting Any network to Any other network without overhead or limitations
• Create an ecosystem to foster innovation

38.
• Enable applications to function across multiple blockchains and multiple
protocols (MApps - Multi-chain Applications)
• Choice - Not be limited to any single vendor or technology
• Better Resilience and Security. Choice to migrate across blockchains
• Cost Management - Provide enterprises and developers the ability to
manage blockchain fees
• Treaty Contracts – evolution of Smart Contracts recognised across
blockchains
• Easy to Integrate Overledger & upgrade existing dApps to MApps
Benefits of Overledger
38

39.
39
Inviting Enterprises & Developers
39
Start benefiting from Overledger
https://developer.quant.network
SDK released 30th September 2018

40.
Thank you
gilbert.verdian@quant.network
Quant Network
www.quant.network