Re: Part 3: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Comparison

On 01/12/2012 02:56 PM, Jake Howerton wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Manu
> Sporny<msporny@digitalbazaar.com>  wrote:
>> bcc: opentransact
>>
>> The interoperability that we're after is at least at the level of
>> SMTP... where you can be on one server and send an e-mail to
>> someone else on another server. The same sort of interoperability
>> is required for payments... OpenTransact does not specify how you
>> do that.
>
> You are confusing "the transaction" and "the delivery", which is why
>  you misunderstood how I categorized ACH.

I think you think I'm talking about "the delivery" - I'm not. See this
(the transaction-backhaul algorithm):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2012Jan/0025.html

> Payment networks cannot always work like SMTP because SMTP has the
> benefit of both of these actions happening in the same medium.

Why not? A gigantic portion of the world's day-to-day wealth transfer is
electronic. The future will have an ever-increasing amount of
transactions performed electronically.

> If I am paying you with gold through an electronic system, at some
> point the gold has to be moved from my vault to your vault, and
> unfortunately I can't do that with an HTTP ;)

Ah, but how often does that happen? Often it is certificates for gold
deposits that are bought and sold, not the actual gold itself. The gold
is kept in a heavily guarded facility.

> Also, there is nothing to hold back two clearing partners in a
> network from settling delivery using standard OpenTransact, if it is
>  physically possible.

Yes, this is what I'm saying that the OpenTransact folks need to spec
out in order to ensure interoperability.

> I think you read past my criticism,   I am not talking about your use
> cases, unless the documentation of your spec is confusing me.  I am
> talking specifically about "2. The Conceptual Model"  The things you
> outline here are business rules which will limit interoperability.
> Limiting interoperability would be self detrimental since that is one
> of your stated goals.

How does it limit interoperability? What use case can you not perform
via the conceptual model?

> The entire point (from my perspective) of specifications and
> standards is to get people to come together philosophically around a
> common problem, and then decide on a technical document that
> describes the philosophy around solving that problem, which is why
> you are hearing feedback about these issues instead of technical
> comparisons/flaws.

Specifically, I was referring to non-actionable statements like the
following:

"OpenTransact vs PaySwarm is like Libertarianism vs Socialism."

"the basic PaySwarm philosophy of wanting to design a whole world view
is very similar to central planning"

"trying to model entire systems of commerce, and what amount to business
rules inside of a supposed payment standard, and at the same time having
a goal of interoperability, seems self detrimental to me."

You explained a bit more about this last comment in your previous
e-mail, so that you for that. That was helpful and we can finally start
talking about specifics, of which I've asked you the first set of
questions above. :)

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/

Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 02:01:10 UTC