How are Hashed Timelock Agreements (HTA) like in the Interledger Protocol (ILP) and WebMonetization Protocol more secure than x402?

Does x402 prevent the double-spending problem?

Isn't it regressive to return to dependence on DNS for financial transactions?

▲

__erik 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>Does x402 prevent the double-spending problem?

This depends on the implementation on the underlying network, but basically the spending signs an authorization for transfer, and the merchant either settles that onchain themselves or delegates to what is called a facilitator that settles on their behalf. On EVM chains for the exact payment scheme this leverages EIP-3009 signatures

	▲	westurner 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ILP (Ripple, FedNow,) has Connectors. I just had this conversation about "Intents" and ILP Connectors: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=45296648 "Powering AI commerce with the new Agent Payments Protocol (AP2)" https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/a... : > AP2 builds trust by using Mandates—tamper-proof, cryptographically-signed digital contracts that serve as verifiable proof of a user's instructions. These mandates are signed by verifiable credentials (VCs) and act as the foundational evidence for every transaction. google-a2a/a2a-x402: A2A x402 extension: https://github.com/google-a2a/a2a-x402 SingularityNET is this concept too, FWIU. https://github.com/singnet So A2A has W3C VC Verifiable Credentials (and DIDs), but not x402? Re: ILP payment pointers, DNS, blockerts (W3C VC) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42961635 : > How can or should a Blockcert indicate an ILP Interledger Protocol address or a Payment Pointer? In order to avoid DNS. Basically because gethostbyname() does not indicate DNSSEC validation status, or channel sec status e.g. whether there's DoH/DoT/DoQ at every edge in the DNS network), or CT Certificate Transparency log cert revocation status (and OCSP and CRL are in-band)) How can ILP and x402 (and IDK EDNS) be integrated? Are they complementary? > Think of x402 as the universal "cash register" signal and ILP as the versatile "payment network" that can handle any currency. [...] and pathfinding with path cost and HTA Hashed-Timelock Agreements for the whole path, with an auditable open spec message standard that accounts for each of the Connectors involved (who specify credit limits). > So, x402 can signal the need for a payment, and ILP can be the underlying mechanism to fulfill that payment request, regardless of the user's preferred currency or payment provider How do x402 and ILP SPSP Simple Payment Setup Protocol compare in terms of signaling the need for a payment? > SPSP is a simplified, connectionless mode of Interledger that is often used for streaming micropayments, as seen in the Web Monetization standard. The signaling is more implicit and is discovered through HTML/HTTP, rather than being an HTTP status code itself. From "HTTP 402: Payment Required" (2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22214156 : > The new W3C Payment Request API [4] makes it easy for browsers to offer a standard (and probably(?) already accessible) interface for the payment data entry screen, at least. https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ There's probably a better HTTP Status dog for 402?