- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:29:10 -0400
- To: Erik Anderson <eanders@pobox.com>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "Lets break down all the use cases and categories of the use cases." Here's the Use Case documentation so far: https://payswarm.com/specs/source/use-cases/ My own specific interests are in Use Case 2.11 "Currency Exchange" https://payswarm.com/specs/source/use-cases/#currency-exchange I commented last week that I think Use Case 2.12 "Alternative Currencies" is just a Sub-Use Case of 2.11, so long as there are policies and a functioning workflow for including any currency. It seems to me that nothing in a W3C Web Payments standard or reference implementation awaits resolution of any virtual currency issues at all. The requirement is simply that the standard and reference implementation "must not exclude" currencies issued from other than central bank sources. On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Erik Anderson <eanders@pobox.com> wrote: > "On that note: I think it's important to separate the different areas in > WebPayments that have to do with payment technologies, regulation, and > virtual currencies. I don't see why we have such a zeal in linking all of > those together. Are we saying that there will be no WebPayments standard > until we have fully operational virtual currencies?" > > Amen!!! > > Lets break down all the use cases and categories of the use cases. They are > most certainly not all linked. Shot gun approach will accomplish little > other than cause people to spin their wheels and burn precious time. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 9, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com> wrote: > > hallo all, > > I was going to say that this was very quickly deriving into a "let's throw > out the baby with the bath water" discussion. Some of the existing > regulations are there to contemplate "use cases" that some projects may not > have had to face yet and I think its not so wise to quickly disregard them > all as "no longer relevant" > > On that note: I think it's important to separate the different areas in > WebPayments that have to do with payment technologies, regulation, and > virtual currencies. I don't see why we have such a zeal in linking all of > those together. Are we saying that there will be no WebPayments standard > until we have fully operational virtual currencies? > > If that is the case then we have a long way to go.. particularly because > virtual currencies still have to find its place in an existing market among > existing regulations (some of which as I mentioned are actually there for a > reason) and as such may take a bit of time to settle in, adapt and evolve.. > > In the meantime, my opinion is that it would be good that at least some > parts of those web payments find their way to real users out there, even if > they have to be built over the "old" payment infrastructures > > Saludos! > > --- > ricardo > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: >> >> RE: "in an era where constraints/requirements are no longer relevant" >> >> That might or might not be the case. Here's a useful reference, for >> example, which the libertarians on this list will recognize: >> >> http://library.mises.org/books/Friedrich%20A%20Hayek/Choice%20in%20Currency.pdf >> >> There used to be diverse currencies operating under all sorts of legal >> frameworks, so it's helpful to look backwards, not just forwards, for >> economic and legal foundations. >> >> BTW, even Thomas Edison worked on a currency proposal: >> >> http://faculty.washington.edu/dtwills/resources/Edisons-Monetary-Option.pdf >> >> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0CEFD71E30E633A25750C2A9619C946395D6CF >> >> Global peer-to-peer virtual currencies innovate some aspects of money, >> but not all. >> >> Joseph Potvin >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM, pindar wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: >> >> >> >> RE: "Not a technical issue" >> >> >> >> These issues are technical in law. >> > >> > >> > Sure... the legal code to be sure. >> > >> >> >> >> They set some of the business >> >> requirements for the application layer. There will be battles about >> >> these business requirements because they really matter. >> > >> > >> > Fully agree. Some were set in an era where constraints/requirements are >> > no >> > longer relevant and hence the importance of interfacing with the >> > traditional >> > banking/financial communities to help manage their expectations of the >> > change that is already underway. I guess that's why it's important to >> > participate in non-technical standards discussion, such as the IGF. >> > >> > p. >> > >> >> >> >> Joseph Potvin >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Joseph Potvin >> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations >> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman >> http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio >> jpotvin@opman.ca >> Mobile: 819-593-5983 >> LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56 >> > > > > -- > Ricardo Varela - http://twitter.com/phobeo > "Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't" -- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 15:29:57 UTC