W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Zero Click Bitcoin Micropayments using HTTP 402

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:33:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLJqmF1WroaHnDzJdeFZC0qsCy+FrS4reHrDWHxgXYNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Leck <markpleck@gmail.com>, Steven rowat <sn0281@uniserve.com>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Eric Martindale <eric@bitpay.com>
On 28 December 2014 at 08:05, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On 2014-12-27 17:45, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>>
>>  <snip>
>
>      Melvin, I don't feel an urge to shoot down anything, I just want to
>> understand how things work.
>>     Since this list is intended for creating input to payment standards
>> it is a reasonable ambition.
>>     I guess the other folks here then understand what you are doing, I
>> must confess I still don't :-(
>>
>>
>> I'm just associating balances with browser certificates, then allowing
>>
> > access to premium content to those with a positive balance, and giving a
> 402 to those that do not.
>
> To me that's a nonsensical description that fills no purpose in a payment
> standardization context.
> You always need to specify the entities involved.
>
> In addition, I don't even think the idea using HTTP 402 actually buys you
> anything since it
> has no meaning in a browser (and thus for the user) which means that there
> must always be
> a *proxy* involved which does the actual work.  That's OK but such a proxy
> can use whatever
> "insufficient funds" return indication to carry out its work since this
> like all other AJAX-
> based schemes anyway builds on a convention.
>
> Anyway, without a trusted UI and/or application concept we have nothing
> that has any chance of
> getting traction on the traditional web; it is better dealing with Android
> and iOS which are
> MUCH more suited for payments than web browsers.
>

HTTP 402 is already standardized.  It means "payment required".


>
>
>     To me the eternal question (in this context NB), is simply "who is
> doing what and with whom and why"
>
>     The Zero Click guys certainly didn't bother much about explaining
> that, maybe it's a trade secret?
>
>
> Just a proof of concept I think.
>

A very bad one since they (apparently) hijack the browser and "reserve"
HTTP 402 for themselves.

Anders


>
>     Cheers,
>     Anders
>
>
>
>              Anders
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 28 December 2014 23:33:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:37 UTC