Re: decentralized wallets and payment processors

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie
<> wrote:
> I don't think availability of suitable technology is the problem.
> There are numerous options and numerous deployments of these.
> That is exactly the problem.
> A discovery protocol must either pick one datastore or pick many datastores
> and search them all.
> If it searches many of these datastores for the data it is trying to find
> what order does it follow and does it stop when it finds it's first match or
> does it search them all and then have some rules for picking the most
> correct match?
> These are hard problems which today are glossed over by the recommendation
> to "use telehash".
> Any clever ideas about how this can be overcome?

I am not qualified as to how "clever" this suggestion would be, but it
seems to this researcher that anything beyond requirements
specification is beyond the scope of this working group, and our focus
should remain on standardizing terminology and specifying
requirements, so that some time in the future someone can announce "my
company gives away a level I distributed wallet product, and we have
the complete level II feature set available for premium customers" and
it will be clear what that means.

AHB has just used the following jargon. "deployment", "discovery
protocol", "datastore," and "telehash." Without stopping and doing a
search I don't know if "telehash" is a generic term for things like
DHT or what.

It seems to me that without a trusted ledger of some kind, bearer
wallets are non-starters, due to  the "double spend problem" that
Satoshi Nakamoto elegantly solved with blockchains. Big central
ledgers work too, look at Visa.

Would adoption of a general resolution stating that feel like progress?

Drive the road, not the traffic.

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 22:49:14 UTC