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

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
>>> >          >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>