W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > February 2016

Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:51:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_LPb8jRsKd8uUB8d3vLXO7xuxw6hO-WSugDAKPw=+XtYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Matt Saxon <matt.saxon@gmail.com>, Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Sorry, I haven't been giving those flows as much attention as I should have.
I have some review comments to still consider and edits to make based on

Following the recent Coindesk article[1] which called out the Bitcoin
community for not getting involved in this work I got some interest in
reviewing the flows. Hopefully we'll see that result in some feedback soon.


[1] http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-bad-reputation-payments-standards-w3c/

On 15 February 2016 at 05:21, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 02/14/2016 05:47 PM, Matt Saxon wrote:
> > I dropped it based on my understanding that he basic flow just
> > covered a peer to peer payment and the other flow covered an
> > interaction closer to a web browser payment. If I've misunderstood,
> > please can someone clarify, Adrian?
> Please don't drop that flow as it's the most fundamental demonstration
> that the Web Payments API can handle "off-Web" cryptocurrency payments.
> BIP70 is also interesting, but for different reasons.
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
> https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 07:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:14 UTC