Re: USE CASE: HTTP URI denoting a Bank-Account?

I was referred to http://www.iso20022.org/ - but haven't read-up yet...

Timh.

Sent from my iPad

> On 4 Jun 2014, at 8:21 pm, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For the service portion of what I'm piecing together for each "wallet" or "account" (the software running at each FQDN), I'm using Meteor/Node.js to develop the concept of a central bank-backed currency unit that is specified as JSON-LD (most likely loosely based on some of the elements of https://schema.org/PriceSpecification). The key attributes will be a central bank identifier, a unique permanent serial number, a timestamp of the last transfer of ownership, a UUID serial number suffix (32 hex digits) that encodes the current owner (identified by their FQDN) and a UUID that represents the previous (now publicly invalidated) owner. A currency holder who wishes to pay someone sends a pay request to the recipient's FQDN, the recipient confirms their ability to receive the payment by then forwarding the request to the central bank for real-time clearing along with their own FQDN. Upon receiving a valid request, the central bank simply confirms sender is the current owner by using sender's FQDN to decode the serial number suffix thus confirming the identity of the current owner, then uses a new timestamp with the new owner's FQDN to generate a new serial number suffix, simultaneously invalidating the previous value of current owner. Lastly, the software running at the central bank (different from what is running at all the wallet nodes) multicasts (via UDP datagram) the confirmation to a subset of distributed databases living at all the wallet nodes AND sends an identical, detailed receipt to just the sender and receiver. The distributed database of all transactions will most likely be stored in a sharded MongoDB cluster... or perhaps in an Apache Kafka sort of multicast messaging scenario. I will probably try both and see which feels like a better match. Mongo is becoming so ubiquitous that it's almost trivial to simply have a local mongoDB instance running as part of the standard wallet platform. Kafka handles a huge amount of data easily and partitions its data automatically. Some experimentation will reveal the best fit.
> 
> This morning I'm working out the details of encoding the UUIDs and decoding them to reveal the current and previous owners. An important characteristic of my proposed solution is that "money should have no memory". Nobody should be able to know who owned a piece of currency before the current owner, except the current owner will know who owned it before them, and lastly, the central banks can and probably will want to log all transactions over time, so they would be able to see who was the owner of a given piece of currency going back until its initial introduction by the Federal Reserve System at some point. (In the US, it's a bit odd because the Dept of the Treasury actually issues the currency, but I don't think it really needs to be tracked until its original ownership by the Federal Reserve.)
> 
> that's all for now. Oops, maybe I should think about sleep at some point too.  :)
> 
> cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Lampton
>  @dave_lampton
>  DaveLampton
>  +DaveLampton
> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do absolutely prefer users have their own fqdn...  It's a no-brainer to me, whilst I also appreciate the difficulties most people experience managing a domain and that poorly deployed fqdn's for individuals, may end-up with greater potential harm of lock-in, than simpler addresses..
>> 
>> However, 
>> 
>> Given these types of addresses can simply be a method to 'denote' a payment location for the Purposes of sending money to an address, at web-scale, I guess the devil is in the detail.
>> 
>> Certainly, your notes about digital cash got me thinking...  :) 
>> 
>> I think webcredits can do the crypto stuff; but I'm not sure of the identifier structure.  In your text, you suggested some form of DNS record attached to a domain.  I imagine that is certainly a very positive gateway method, and certainly. DNS for subdomains could be directed as you suggested previously, in different ways to connect to different financial servers. 
>> 
>> I guess, the other constituent was that say a service exists to send money to others.  Others can say how they want to be paid, perhaps an address is generated to pay an array of people, in an array of different formats, for percentages of a transaction.
>> 
>> Bitcoin addresses are easy.  What is more difficult is finding some way of having an address that, say, denotes I want money to go into my Aussie bank account called "rewards for good internet technology contributions".  It might have no funds in it, and is simply there (akin to an account linked to a PayPal address) for the purposes of. Receiving those funds, via my www identifier. 
>> 
>> Banks hate bitcoin.  But the simple reality is, they've provided no easy alternative.  I can buy a bitcoin (which is strictly unnecessary step) then plug in the address of someone else who's got one, and send them "funds". I can't do that easily with my Aussie bank account.   So in terms of the functionality scope for web-payments standards, seemed like an important use-case to ensure was included as part of the scope of works...
>> 
>> Perhaps how it works is a different part of the process again...
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 4 Jun 2014, at 6:55 pm, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Certainly not going to appear to be a problem on the surface, but I feel it's a vulnerability, yes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dave Lampton
>>>  @dave_lampton
>>>  DaveLampton
>>>  +DaveLampton
>>> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Do you believe this flaw affects bitcoin addresses also??
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 4 Jun 2014, at 6:48 pm, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Having already given this question some thought, I'd already decided that a URI is probably not the best solution. It makes it too easy for one server to start serving as an account/wallet for lots of people at once, which may seem harmless enough at first, but it may be enough if those people simply know each others' specific URIs it may be enough to start gaming the system or otherwise trying to hack each other.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Therefore in my opinion, URI specification is inadequate and accounts/wallets/money bags/whatever you wanna call them should each be completely specified by a FQDN (host-specific while ignoring path), such that no two wallets/accounts share the same FQDN. That does also mean that every possessor of a wallet must first possess a domain and/or a subdomain that nobody but they control. (These can easily be managed via existing registrar ownership and transfer regulations and of course, the DNS system.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dave Lampton
>>>>>  @dave_lampton
>>>>>  DaveLampton
>>>>>  +DaveLampton
>>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was wondering about how some form of HTTP URI might be provided to a bank-account customer.  Banking systems currently have an array of different identifiers that are provided between parties for the purposes of transferring funds (say, from parents to children, etc.) Existing account details work within banking systems (SWIFT codes, BSB / Account Numbers, etc.); however i couldn’t find the schema available to provide a HTTP URI of a bank account at Web-Scale?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I envisage this to be similar to a crypto-currency address, perhaps with a relation to an institution? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> EXAMPLE (not syntactically accurate for web-payments / payswarm)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> whereas; 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IdP: bitcoin 
>>>>>> ADDRESS: 12V7BYH4jPTeeWXfEKJ1rrifizgdvkrzsU (example only)
>>>>>> Amount: 1 
>>>>>> valueFormat; bitcoin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> now therefore;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IdP: Westpac.AU
>>>>>> Address: 123546799876688232234 (example only - account doesn’t exist to my knowledge)
>>>>>> Amount $1.00
>>>>>> valueFomat: AUD
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Therein; I have a foaf profile document: http://ubiquitous.rww.io/profile/card#me whereby i can list or insert my bitcoin addresses.  How can an individual create a HTTP identifier / method for a traditional banking accounts?  Equally, the address could be converted into a QRCode or other form, denoting the same details (and enabling the same transaction). 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is defining a HTTP URI identifying a bank account; and, To use a HTTP URI to make a transaction to a bank-account, between institutional banking providers (?) within scope…
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> does a method already exist (as provided by banking institutions, not via intermediary, such as paypal)?
>