Re: Legacy systems vs blockchains - what is the spec impact?

On 24 October 2014 20:13, Daniel.Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@target.com> wrote:

> > I guess (on thin ice here...) that a receiver (payee) looks into the
> > distributed ledger for proof of transaction.
>
> "I doubt that anyone seriously expects a mobile app to store a whole
> block chain; in practice, a user of a blockchain system communicates
> with a specialist, reducing the situation to federation."
>
> The difference here is that the app in question could self-certify
> transactions with its own server using direct blockchain queries. The apps
> own server can install the bitcoind package and process confirmations
> itself. This is not a federated reliance on a large provider like
> Blockchain.info.
>

Agree


>
> My main area of interest is in the user stories for developers and
> consumers. Obviously developers want to reach a broad consumer base, and
> today that includes mostly legacy credit/fiat systems of value transfer -
> that's just the reality. Given these business requirements, I completely
> agree that the standard must (and should) allow for all types of value
> transfer over N systems.
>
> However, I wonder if we can allow for a more streamline flow, within the
> same set of APIs, if the dev or user chooses a payment type that does not
> require all the same steps as other value transfer systems. Maybe the
> proposals already allow for this, I need to do more investigation (talking
> through it at TPAC will help). In the end, my only desire is to arrive at a
> place where the standards we create do not impose needless steps on every
> value transfer system plugged into it, if that can be avoided (note: I am
> not saying what you currently have does this).
>

Again agree.  Every block explorer seems to have a different format, it
would be nice to standardize.

I'm working on an ontology on this front at:

https://w3id.org/cc

There is also:

https://github.com/DOACC

Ultimately I'd like to patch bitcoind to operate this way, and then have a
trust and reputation overlay of honest nodes.  Working on it! :)


>
> For now I'll do more research and get up to speed with all the material. I
> have nowhere near the level of insight I need to make any statements about
> the current work. Let me know if I've anything in error - after all, you
> have far more insight into the details of these proposals and what they
> must account for.
>
> Thanks for the discussion thus far, I can't wait to learn more,
>
> - Daniel
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: David Nicol [davidnicol@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:59 AM
> To: Anders Rundgren
> Cc: Reutzel, Bailey; Manu Sporny; Eric Martindale; Web Payments
> Subject: Re: Legacy systems vs blockchains - what is the spec impact?
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Anders Rundgren
> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess (on thin ice here...) that a receiver (payee) looks into the
> > distributed ledger for proof of transaction.
>
> I doubt that anyone seriously expects a mobile app to store a whole
> block chain; in practice, a user of a blockchain system communicates
> with a specialist, reducing the situation to "federation."
>
>
> --
> Sometimes I imply things, or include important information in
> pictures. Without a request for clarification, I will assume I was
> clear, which can cause later problems when I wasn't. So please ask me
> to clarify anything that seems ambiguous. Doing so is not rude. Thank
> you.
>
>
>