W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Tradehill Bitcoin exchange shut down for 2nd time in 2 years

From: Charles Evans <cevans@chyden.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:18:42 -0400
Message-ID: <522DD8C2.4020003@chyden.net>
To: Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com>
CC: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, pindar wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
In response to both the Bono Declaration, "Capitalism takes more people
out of poverty than aid," and the Tradehill/IAFCU blowup, some of us in
South Florida have taken the first steps to establish a non-profit
membership organization with plans to establish a appropriate credit
union, once we have enough members to justify this.

http://bitcountant.com/foundation-for-conscious-entrepreneurship/

Anyone interested is invited to join our Facebook group, even if you are
not in South Florida:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/MiamiInternationalBitcoin/

We are particularly intrigued by the W3C's plan to integrate payments
into the browser, as this would be a HUGE boon to our mission.

Yours,

Charles Evans
CFO, Bitcountant
Co-Organizer, Miami International Bitcoin



On 09/09/2013 09:48 AM, Ricardo Varela wrote:
> hallo all,
>
> I was going to say that this was very quickly deriving into a "let's
> throw out the baby with the bath water" discussion. Some of the
> existing regulations are there to contemplate "use cases" that some
> projects may not have had to face yet and I think its not so wise to
> quickly disregard them all as "no longer relevant"
>
> On that note: I think it's important to separate the different areas
> in WebPayments that have to do with payment technologies, regulation,
> and virtual currencies. I don't see why we have such a zeal in linking
> all of those together. Are we saying that there will be no WebPayments
> standard until we have fully operational virtual currencies? 
>
> If that is the case then we have a long way to go.. particularly
> because virtual currencies still have to find its place in an existing
> market among existing regulations (some of which as I mentioned are
> actually there for a reason) and as such may take a bit of time to
> settle in, adapt and evolve.. 
>
> In the meantime, my opinion is that it would be good that at least
> some parts of those web payments find their way to real users out
> there, even if they have to be built over the "old" payment
> infrastructures
>
> Saludos!
>
> ---
> ricardo
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca
> <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>> wrote:
>
>     RE: "in an era where constraints/requirements are no longer relevant"
>
>     That might or might not be the case. Here's a useful reference, for
>     example, which the libertarians on this list will recognize:
>     http://library.mises.org/books/Friedrich%20A%20Hayek/Choice%20in%20Currency.pdf
>
>     There used to be diverse currencies operating under all sorts of legal
>     frameworks, so it's helpful to look backwards, not just forwards, for
>     economic and legal foundations.
>
>     BTW, even Thomas Edison worked on a currency proposal:
>     http://faculty.washington.edu/dtwills/resources/Edisons-Monetary-Option.pdf
>     http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0CEFD71E30E633A25750C2A9619C946395D6CF
>
>     Global peer-to-peer virtual currencies innovate some aspects of money,
>     but not all.
>
>     Joseph Potvin
>
>
>
>     On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM, pindar wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com
>     <mailto:pindar.wong@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca
>     <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> RE: "Not a technical issue"
>     >>
>     >> These issues are technical in law.
>     >
>     >
>     > Sure... the legal code to be sure.
>     >
>     >>
>     >> They set some of the business
>     >> requirements for the application layer. There will be battles about
>     >> these business requirements because they really matter.
>     >
>     >
>     > Fully agree. Some were set in an era where
>     constraints/requirements are no
>     > longer relevant and hence the importance of interfacing with the
>     traditional
>     > banking/financial communities to help manage their expectations
>     of the
>     > change that is already underway. I guess that's why it's
>     important to
>     > participate in non-technical standards discussion, such as the IGF.
>     >
>     > p.
>     >
>     >>
>     >> Joseph Potvin
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>
>     --
>     Joseph Potvin
>     Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>     The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>     http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
>     jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>
>     Mobile: 819-593-5983 <tel:819-593-5983>
>     LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ricardo Varela -  http://twitter.com/phobeo
> "Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 15:47:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:24 UTC