Re: base paradigm

On 01/03/2014 12:36 AM, David Nicol wrote:
> there is discussion of "the base technology" --- how about going one 
> level more abstract? Can we get a consensus on "message passing" as
> the base paradigm?  Or do we, rather, favor remote procedure calls?
> Or something else? Is there a difference? Am I raving?  Thank you

In general, this is the base paradigm we've been using thus far for the
PaySwarm spec stack:

1. Assume the Web exists and is available to avoid re-inventing the
   wheel or uneven focus on corner cases.
2. Stay compliant with the Architecture of the WWW, because it scales
   really well to billions of people.
3. Use URLs to denote "things" such as financial accounts, identities,
   products, services, etc.
4. Use messages that are capable of expressing Linked Data, because
   extensibility and the freedom to innovate is important.
5. Build on top of well-understood protocols, such as HTTP.
6. REST is a good design paradigm for Web-based protocols, use it
   until something better shows up.
7. Don't be afraid to suggest that the previous 6 items are broken in
   some way.

Keep in mind that Bitcoin and other technologies like it don't use the
same basis, but are technologies that we think are very interesting and
transformative.

I don't think there is one base paradigm for this group. PaySwarm
exists, Bitcoin exists, and Ripple exists. Each have their own base
paradigm that differs greatly from the others and is also one of the
things that makes the technology interesting.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/

Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 18:47:20 UTC