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

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

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:09:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2MwH6e1xwM_cHMoRBxhKi9BRxCeOx_RojWk=FC7NPf3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>

maybe i missed it, but is there a brief on the implications of the recent
changes in the payments work.

we've followed the call to support paymentd use-cases in creds work.

What's the situation now?


On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 9:14 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4 March 2016 at 17:28, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >From memory, the first browser written by timbl had the capacity to read
>> and write documents. This functionality was later removed.
> Yes browsers were designed to read and edit.  Not just documents but
> data.  The design of the first browser was phenomenal.  Architecturally
> dwarfs anything around today.
> There was a moment when Mosiac chose the direction of browsers (vs browser
> + editors).  Andreessen when for multi media vs interactivity.  While this
> was great for polularizing netscape and browsing it centralized
> functionality to change things away from the browser, away from the user,
> and into the server.  So that's where payments go today.
> The 'browser' by its very name implies, 'you can look but you cant touch'.
> There's a whole new awesome web possible now with modern standards such as
> AJAX which allow the browser to both read and write.
> Payments at this point become trivially easy.  In fact the technology
> behind sending a payment is LESS than the technology of sending an instant
> message.  One is a number one is a short text, and text is generally longer
> than a number.
> Browsers come and browsers go.  The space for browsers in 100 years from
> now will be completely unimaginable today.  When the browser becomes a
> browser editor again, capable of interaction with the giant global graph
> (ggg), we have a game changing situation.  And the good news is that all
> the standards required, just about exist today.  Let a thousand flowers
> bloom! :)
>> 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.
>> 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> 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> 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>. 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 <
>>>> <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>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 <
>>>> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>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>>> 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 Saturday, 5 March 2016 10:10:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 5 March 2016 10:10:41 UTC