Re: P2P Payments

On 12/5/14 8:50 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> On 2014-12-05 14:29, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 12/4/14 2:48 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>
>>> P2P payments are established in many places in the world.  My guess is
>>> that none of these are based on standard web technology because this
>>> technology simply isn't up to such tasks; it will take many years to
>>> get on par with "Apps", if even possible.
>>>
>>> It is sad but the web is lagging and the lag is increasing due to the
>>> success of Android and iOS.
>>>
>>> Anders (on Android)
>>>
>>
>> What does "Standard Web Technology" mean?
>
> To simplify the discussion a bit: The web does not support client-based
> cryptographic keys (except through HTTPS CCA which doesn't not sign 
> data).

To me you are really saying: there isn't a W3C spec for user-agent-based 
cryptography.

>
> Well, the web actually *did* support signatures but the browser-vendors
> (and W3C...) sitting in their ivory towers simply declared browser 
> plugins
> as a bad thing without coming up with any kind of "replacement scheme".
>
> WebCrypto does *not* match up with the browser-plugins.

Why not? You can now store data in storage associated with a browser 
that's local, since HTML5.

>
> Seen from that perspective the web is effectively going *backwards* while
> the App-environment is security-wise getting stronger and stronger, with
> Apple Pay as a recent example.

Apple Pay treats the device as the user-agent. Apple understands the 
importance of the host operating system i.e., that browser based 
user-agents != only kind of user agent.

The Web is not about one kind of user agent, far from it, as mobile 
platforms continue to demonstrate.

>
> In theory the WebCrypto.Next project could address this "deficit" but 
> I have
> to date not seen anything that has even the slightest chance of 
> getting adoption.

There is more than one kind of user-agent that can operate on the World 
Wide Web or any other HTTP based network. Web Browser are overrated, if 
you ask me :)


Kingsley
>
> Anders
>
>>
>> I do know of the Architecture of the World Wide Web (AWWW) which covers
>> the key components for building a Web-like abstraction atop the
>> Internet, comprised of:
>>
>> 1. URIs -- for denotation
>> 2. HTTP URIs -- for implicit denotation and identification (courtesy of
>> implicit Name->Address indirection for URI meaning interpretation)
>> 3. HTML - language and notation combo for describing and representing
>> documents
>> 4. RDF - language for representing entity relations using a variety of
>> loosely-coupled notations.
>>
>> 1-4 are the basis of the Web as we know it.
>>
>> #4 in regards to the "RDF" moniker is just a formalization (by the W3C)
>> of what was always intrinsic to the Web's original design [1][2].
>>
>> Being "Standard Web Technology" based (as I understand it) is a little
>> different from you continue frame this matter.
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> [1]
>> http://bit.ly/evidence-that-the-world-wide-web-was-based-on-linked-data-from-inception 
>>
>> [2] http://bit.ly/world-wide-web-25-years-later
>> [3] http://www.openlinksw.com/data/turtle/general/GlossaryOfTerms.ttl --
>> Glossary of Terms
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this