Re: An very different take on the distributed web

On 27 May 2014 06:05, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-05-27 03:53, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 May 2014 21:33, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com<mailto:
>> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webcrypto-__
>> comments/2014May/0062.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
>> Public/public-webcrypto-comments/2014May/0062.html>
>>
>>
>>     Quite extreme but maybe a bit fun :-)
>>
>>     I guess WebID and WebPayments have about the same chance succeeding
>>     given the lack of a *useful* AND *accepted* client authentication
>> system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> For WebPayments it is very easy to explain.  None of the existing players
> like VISA will bother about a system that doesn't offer better security
> (wrt client-binding) than their existing (provably non-secure) systems.
> Credit-card payments are essentially at the same level as 20 years ago.
>
> For WebID the situation is more unclear since WebID nowadays apparently
> is mainly characterized as a way of representing data.  In spite of that
> the use of transport-level authentication (WebID-TLS) is *heavily promoted*
> although transport-level authentication probably accounts for less than
> 0.001% of all browser-authentications on the web.
>
> Although WebID and WebPayments share a common technology ("Linked Data"),
> the WebPayments CG have *rejected* WebID-TLS due to its awkward UI.
>

I dont find the UI awkward, I use it 100s of times every day.

So not everyone in the payment CG has rejected webid+TLS.  But TLS is
simply optional.  WebID works with any authentication system you can
imagine.  I use TLS simply because it's the *best* out there, imho.

I find legacy banking UIs extremely awkward.  I think most people do, but
it's an evil that they will tolerate out of necessity.


>
> I believe the problem boils down to a very basic fact; people are pretty
> bad
> cooperating except on smallish issues where "all speak the same language".
>
> Unfortunately this leaves the future of the web in the hands of
> mega-corporations
> like Google who can launch "the whole thing" without getting stuck in
> boring and
> non-constructive discussions like this...
>

Sure the web is getting more centralized.  But not everyone follows the
centralized model.

Decentralization simply offers so many use cases, that it will always have
a contingent ... only takes a handful of people (maybe as few as 10) to
make something successful.


>
> Anders
>
>
>>
>>     Anders
>>
>>
>>
>