Re: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is available for comments

How about using the well-established "quasi-currency" or "near-money"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_money

The "crypto" part of "cryptocurrency" is a qualifier that refers to
just one of the interesting attributes of the BTC/XRP/etc units.  Lots
of digital stuff is encrypted -- so what? More interesting
systemically is its P2P character anyways. But speaking precisely from
the "payments" perspective, use of  "quasi-currency" or "near-money"
would be simple, clear and accurate within a W3C IC charter, without
any implication that the W3C is unnecessarily taking a side against
various legal and governmental decisions.

Joseph

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> I'm sure there will be some rolling their eyes by now at my apparent
> obstinacy on this!  Sorry, FWIW. I dunno, one you over near MIT should
> ask Noam Chomsky to settle this linguistic semantic issue. :-)
> (BTW, I'm actually not kidding.)
>
> RE: "electronic tokens" while neutral would hardly convey the meaning
> of cryptocurrencies
>
> Then...   those ones are "encrypted electronic tokens"?
>
> Can anyone find an online precise definition of the word
> "cryptocurrency" that does not define it as a type of currency or of
> money? That's the problem.
>
> Here's one:
> https://www.coinpursuit.com/pages/what-is-cryptocurrency/
>
> If long-term ambiguity and inter-disciplinary debate is the goal, then
> the W3C should use a word that is popular but known from the outset to
> be inconsistent with the legal and accounting environment within which
> it will be engaged.
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>> My 2cts (personal opinion, not with a chair hat)
>>
>> *"electronic tokens" while neutral would hardly convey the meaning of
>> cryptocurrencies.
>> *Some cryptocurrencies are not recognized in some regulations, but some are
>> recognized in others. therefore, it is not abut citing something which is
>> illegal. The objectives of this group imho is to provide technologies that
>> will fit with all regulations. Therefore, citing cryptocurrencies is a
>> perfect example, as we will have to deal with such cases where a given
>> payment solution is allowed in some countries and not in other. Therefore,
>> it is right to cite it in the list of use cases we will cover
>>
>>
>> steph
>>
>> Le 27/05/2014 17:53, Joseph Potvin a écrit :
>>>
>>> RE: "Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency,
>>> or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as
>>> “convertible” virtual currency."  Source:
>>> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf
>>>
>>> Tobie,
>>>
>>> (a) Having worked a decade in a government central agency, I can spot
>>> a confused government bureaucrat pretty quickly.
>>> (b) The W3C needs to use language that comfortably spans jurisdictions.
>>> (c) Several jurisdictions incl China are explicit that BTC is a
>>> commodity, not a currency. Therefore buying something with it is a
>>> form of barter, like trading the rights to some of your digital photos
>>> in exchange for some egg rolls.
>>> (d) You did not say what you think of my suggestion of "electronic
>>> tokens" as neutral, routine, yet precise language
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The case of cryptocurrencies or digital
>>>>>> currencies is more problematic. i got your point, and i agree with it,
>>>>>> however, this is quite a generic name, independently of the legal
>>>>>> status
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a currency or not isn't it?
>>>>>> Is there a way we could mention these emerging payment options through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> use of a neutral word?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [JRP1:]  A neutral term could be "electronic tokens" which can be a
>>>>> type of "electronic media of exchange" regardless of whether or not
>>>>> they are deemed to represent a currency in and of themselves  I wonder
>>>>> if anyone from the Ripple, Ven, Bitcoin+derivatives communities on
>>>>> these lists might let us know if my suggestion would bother them, or
>>>>> if it's a reasonable compromise considering the W3C's need (well, I
>>>>> reckon it's a need) to steer clear or taking sides in the ongoing
>>>>> juridical interpretations worldwide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cryptocurrency is the commonly used terminology. Event though the IRS
>>>> doesn't treat cryptocurrencies as legal currencies (which I suspect was
>>>> the
>>>> case you were referring to, Joseph), it still calls them virtual
>>>> currencies[1]. So, I really don't think there's any issue with using
>>>> cryptocurrency in the context of the charter. Quite the contrary: it's
>>>> explicit.
>>>>
>>>> --tobie
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> [1]: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
>> W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
>> BP 93
>> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>> France
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983



-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 14:21:21 UTC