W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Payments activity - any point to our time and effort?

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:12:51 -0800
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56D9C213.80909@sunshine.net>
On 3/4/16 8:28 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> Devices are all capable of being both servers and clients, the merits
> of web-browsers at all may come into question within the useful time
> period of any standards produced, given the period of time it takes
> and the availability of linked-data related capabilities as to provide
> low-level alternatives that may indeed improve efficiency around the
> delivery of technology that is actually capable of supporting the
> rights of natural legal entities as its primary purpose of existence
> in our physical world in which we build ever more sophisticated tools,
> with ever more asymmetric qualities, embedded to a great extent, from
> that early decision made post the timbl browser.

Tim,
As to your earlier question in the opening post of this thread, "What 
are we doing here?", I dunno, but IMNSHO your sentence above deserves 
a gold star or at least some sort of award no matter what context it's 
viewed in. :-)

More seriously: great find, Tim, on the link of Manu's frustration and 
the response by the W3C.

I largely agree with Anders replies to you. My personal involvement 
with W3C around HTML5 taught me that there was oligopoly-funded 
decision-making in the W3C. Corporations take care of their own.

Apparently, from the posts you found, the W3C path for Payments and 
Credentials risks simply working for their needs without any real 
decision-making power over the end result.

That's why I'm only in this CG, not in the W3C Interest or working 
groups. This is Where The Wild Things Are. :-)

That's why I'm primarily interested in what the CCN and Bitcoin 
blockchain people are doing, which has the capability of exploding or 
bypassing all of this. They're doing it in different ways, but 
apparently at the same logical level, and IMO one that could 
fundamentally shift the oligopoly-control of the browser-based reality.

My 2c.

Great way to start the morning, Tim and Anders! Thanks. Now I'll go 
patch the drywall in the ceiling, which may be more useful than any of 
this.  LOL.


Steven


>
> These statistics appear to be important then. Given the
> stakeholdership of these efforts broadly, understanding whether some
> of our most basic assumptions have merit, is an important investment
> decision for most if not all involved.
>
> Tim.h.
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 3:19 AM, Anders Rundgren
> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     On 2016-03-04 17:08, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>     Then why bother with the W3C, other than for marketing purposes.
>
>     Good question!
>
>     IMO, the landscape has changed while the map has not.
>     There's no proof that organizations like W3C actually provide the
>     value they once did.
>     The world traveling at a pace which makes standards much less
>     attractive.
>     The closer you get to an application, the less likely a standard
>     will prevail.
>     The W3C Web Payment initiative was IMNSHO founded on wrong
>     assumptions.
>     The effort should have focused on finding universal pieces of
>     technology that (for example) could be used to build new payment
>     systems.
>
>
>     Anders
>
>
>>     If you're going to end-up with a particular set of outcomes then
>>     anyone who's been doing it long enough would change their
>>     strategy to exploit those weaknesses. Are there any statistics
>>     available about these sorts of issues and the outcomes. I
>>     understand if the data is incomplete, yet, those who've been
>>     around long enough might be able to offer some insight. Stats
>>     would be about the the number of projects and the number of
>>     times these sorts of strategic resolution strategies have been
>>     the result. I say if it's more than average, then we've got a
>>     problem. If not, well. Something else is wrong or perhaps it is
>>     specifically due to the economic nature of the debate and
>>     related instruments. Timh.
>>
>>     On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 2:57 AM, Anders Rundgren
>>     <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         It is all very simple.
>>
>>         When Microsoft won the battle of the desktop OS it was not
>>         because they had
>>         the best products, it was because their stuff was better
>>         marketed while the
>>         competition spent their precious cycles on fighting each other.
>>
>>         Why would Web payments be any different?
>>
>>         Anders
>>
>>
>>         On 2016-03-04 16:49, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>         > Pic, I hope people don't mind me posted...
>>         >
>>         > These are serious issues that I do not believe are being
>>         considered seriously. I believe these are choices that will
>>         impact the future of communications, economy, law and
>>         broader systems throughout our world. Yet, the desire
>>         appears to be to ensure less than a handful of legal
>>         entities be made controllers for everything on the planet.
>>         >
>>         > If that is the determination, then let's get onto it. I
>>         think they want the worlds data funnelled into their A.I.
>>         Systems and if we are effectively slaves, without hope for
>>         independent identities, self determination, et.al
>>         <http://et.al> <http://et.al>. Well, then let's not argue,
>>         let's just start doing something more positive with our time.
>>         >
>>         > What I struggle with is such significant investments of
>>         time and effort to see myself and others treated so very
>>         poorly, they'd be better off doing almost anything else.
>>         Slaves were fed, some agents appear to believe in more
>>         'efficient' means of obtaining cheap energy, and if that's
>>         not going to change or be provided an opportunity to be
>>         examined, then well... I hear some parts of Asia are very
>>         cheap to live in. Could do a few basic sites and live
>>         happily, not wasting my time or that of others.
>>         >
>>         > I've forwarded that wonderful outline of how the browser
>>         companies can be influenced to WebID stakeholders, because
>>         whilst TimBL is involved personally with that work. They've
>>         had enormous trouble getting a reasonable user experience. I
>>         hope their delighted by the opportunity that's seemingly
>>         been presented (as an accountable defence for a problem that
>>         apparently doesn't exist...)
>>         >
>>         > We're along way away from having something that's awesome.
>>         If we do not have the means for carriage of these works, we
>>         could be contributing towards some very bad outcomes, much
>>         worse than those today without greater tools for those
>>         actors who are dangerous.
>>         >
>>         > I've not seen many homeless people damage many others,
>>         usually only themselves. Yet, they've got a very different
>>         perceived social standing than others driving nice cars,
>>         upon the misery of so many. Whether it be prostitution,
>>         broken homes, broken promises, legal strategies or the
>>         myriad of other things utilised by those with wealth.
>>         >
>>         > Do we have any intention to help vulnerable people present
>>         their problems to a court of law, enhancing their
>>         accessibility to access to justice
>>         >
>>         > Or is that just so way outta scope by those who influence
>>         the delivery of this work that well, that recent letter from
>>         the San Fran tech worker about the homeless in sanfran, I
>>         didn't understand. It was an act of kindness, perhaps even
>>         if it made them refugees...
>>         >
>>         > Very Troubled.
>>         >
>>         > On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 2:30 AM, Timothy Holborn
>>         <<mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>timothy.holborn@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>         <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         >     Given the logic, maybe trump is the answer...
>>         >
>>         >     On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 2:26 AM, Anders Rundgren
>>         <<mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         >         On 2016-03-04 16:17, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>         >          > Well China has a different system of
>>         government. I wonder how they treat people who contribute.
>>         >
>>         >         Unfortunately the problem is that the world at
>>         large seems unaware of that Google is
>>         >         a kind of company we have never seen before. That
>>         is, in the old world people are
>>         >         referring to their boss when it comes to
>>         decisions.  I have never heard any of
>>         >         the W3C Googlers do that and they don't have
>>         titles like "VP of SW engineering".
>>         >
>>         >         China still has a (theoretical) chance.
>>         >
>>         >         Anders
>>         >
>>         >          >
>>         >          > Don't think we need a Magna Carta for the web,
>>         or a earth passport. We need apple and the others to start
>>         issuing them, I'm sure they'll be able to update the
>>         readers, after all, court orders - meh, design software that
>>         invalidates the requests and squash the alternatives...
>>         >          >
>>         >          > New world order. Only $899 for the updated
>>         deluxe appendage, and after $40pcm, your able to start
>>         thinking about the human rights of children or whatever you
>>         think is important.
>>         >          >
>>         >          > So very, very frustrated.
>>         >          >
>>         >          > Anders, always good to chat. Don't always
>>         agree, but have always considered you a contributor.
>>         >          >
>>         >          > Timh.
>>         >          > On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 2:10 AM, Anders Rundgren
>>         <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>>         >          >
>>         >          >     On 2016-03-04 15:30, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>         >          >>     I've been reading this:
>>         <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Feb/0527.html>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Feb/0527.html
>>         Is our work valuable at all or is this some sick joke that
>>         looks like Wall Street Execs vs. the concept of law and such
>>         things for the billions of other humans around the
>>         planet...? After reading this, I have severe concerns about
>>         the viability of building anything meaningful here. I think
>>         that should be made clear. W3C was established due to issues
>>         that emerged sometime ago. New issues threaten humanity as
>>         is influenced specifically by web standards. Their are a
>>         number of very troubling problems here, and I fully support
>>         Manu, who's work has brought all this together and to
>>         suggest otherwise is an act of horrific behaviour I very
>>         much doubt they'd want subject to accountability, as such,
>>         What are we doing here? Timh.
>>         >          >
>>         >          >     Well, there are reasons to why (for
>>         example) 1B+ secure payment cards never did make it to the Web.
>>         >          >
>>         >          >     Regarding the more technical aspects of
>>         this work I find it slightly amusing that when I suggested
>>         enhancing the interface between the Web and App worlds, it
>>         was either met with dead silence or with statements that
>>         indirectly suggested that I'm a charlatan. When Google did
>>         the same (but much less universal) proposal everybody
>>         listened and nobody complained.
>>         >          >
>>         >          >     These are the realities.
>>         >          >
>>         >          >     Not even China with their millions of
>>         engineers and leading production of devices can do anything
>>         about Google's dominance in Web and mobile phone technology!
>>         >          >
>>         >          >
>>         >          >     Anders
>>         >          >
>>         >
>>
>
Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 17:13:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 4 March 2016 17:13:24 UTC