at Web Payments WG to remove central registry issue, URL based mechanism is introduced. see Payment Method Identifier document : https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-id/ 2016년 9월 21일 (수) 오후 9:19, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net>님이 작성: > from previous experiences, groups(including CG, IG and WG) are very > difficult to produce common governance rules specially for registry. > > this is one of the points CG can discuss. > 2016년 9월 21일 (수) 18:48, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo <adan@stampery.co>님이 > 작성: > >> Hi Mountie, >> >> > could you switch document mode you attached >> > to allowing comments? >> Done! Sorry it was not allowed by default. >> > how to cover or handle private chains? >> > many groups are trying to handle blockchain privately with reduced >> > difficulties. >> > even some private chains has very low trust than the public chains. >> > actually can not define it is blockchain. >> That is a question that needs to be first faced from the "group scope" >> perspective. >> There is an ongoing heated debate on whether it really does make sense >> to anchor data into a private blockchain. >> Either way, it would be possible by using a URI anchor type as Wayne >> just said—thanks for saving me the explanation ;) >> > who and how define chainID? >> The Community Group and eventually the Working Group should be in charge >> of defining them. "How" will depend on the governance model chosen by >> the group itself. >> > some groups are not trying to load data on OP_RETURN script to reduce >> > or postpone the tx fee to consumer side(meaning putting data on input >> > script). >> > who and how define anchor type? >> That's a really good point. OP_RETURN is not the only way to anchor data >> into the Bitcoin blockchain (e.g. OpenTimestamps). >> In the case of Ethereum, AFAIK, there are at least two different >> methods as well. >> >> Best, >> >> -- >> Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo >> CTO, Stampery Inc. >> San Francisco - Madrid >> T: +34 663 163 375 >> >>
Received on Saturday, 24 September 2016 09:54:47 UTC