Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

Dave, I don't know what to think about your post. Seriously, you totally
missed this crucial maxim: "web payments can't buy happiness"
:P

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

>  On 04/17/2015 12:43 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17 April 2015 at 16:16, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  On 04/16/2015 03:45 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 April 2015 at 18:53, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> The first public working draft of the W3C Web Payments Use Cases has
>>> just been published:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4616?pk_campaign=feed&pk_kwd=first-public-working-draft-web-payments-use-cases-1-0
>>>
>>> There's a blog post here covering the release:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/blog/wpig/2015/04/16/web-payments-use-cases-fpwd/
>>>
>>> A good chunk of the Credentials CG's work has been integrated into the
>>> document, the rest is slated to be integrated during the next two months.
>>>
>>> This is very important progress. It demonstrates that the Web Payments
>>> Interest Group is functioning in a healthy way, is producing relevant
>>> material, and is moving quickly.
>>>
>>> Thanks to all in this group that helped make this happen over the past
>>> 4+ years.
>>>
>>> Review comments from this group are requested. Instructions on how to
>>> provide feedback can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#sotd
>>>
>>
>>  Thanks for sharing and all the effort you've put in.  Congrats on
>> getting this far!
>>
>>  I've been prototyping and testing, a pure web standards based payment
>> system, and am at a point where I'm processing about 250,000 payments a
>> year, which is small scale in financial terms, but I have found quite
>> useful as a learning experience.
>>
>> What I have found is over 99% of the payments so far, I've been working
>> on are a very simple use case, namely:
>>
>>  Alice pays Bob <amount> <currency>
>>
>>  Would this be considered part of section A -- "Future Work"?  Or is
>> this kind of payment covered in an existing use case, because the ones I
>> looked at all look more like purchases than payments.
>>
>>  I'm slightly sure where my work fits into the intersection of the IG /
>> CG / WG, or if it intersects at all.
>>
>>
>>  The Web Payments Use Cases document is organized into the "Phases" of
>> making a payment. Each micro use case (for which there are many more to be
>> added to the document), should fit into these phases. Not every step of
>> each phase needs to be executed (some are optional depending on the type of
>> payment). Here's an example that analyzes how Alice would pay Bob
>> (person-to-person):
>>
>> Phase 1:
>>
>> Agreement on Terms - payer and payee agree on
>>   - what will be purchased: "happiness"
>>   - for how much: "amount"
>>   - in what currency: "btc"
>>   - which payment schemes are accepted: "BitCoin"
>>
>> Phase 2:
>>
>> Discovery of Accepted Schemes - bitcoin
>> Selection of Payment Instruments - bitcoin
>> Authentication to Access Instruments - bitcoin private key
>>
>> Phase 3:
>>
>> Initiation of Processing - payer initiates payment
>> Verification of Available Funds - bitcoin protocol
>> Authorization of Transfer - bitcoin protocol
>> Completion of Transfer - bitcoin protocol
>>
>> Phase 4:
>>
>> Delivery of Product - money has bought happiness
>> Delivery of Receipt - receipt has been delivered
>>
>> IMO, obvious minimal targets for standardization: payment request and
>> payment receipt.
>>
>> I believe this case fits nicely into the use cases framework.
>>
>
>  I see that this workflow is useful.
>
>  I find a payment to be thought of as a "purchase of happiness" to be
> slightly contrived, maybe I could live with it tho.  What if im not
> purchasing happiness, or not purchasing anything at all?
>
>
> I originally had typed in "nothing" instead of "happiness". I was just
> trying to add some levity. :)
>
> Purchasing "nothing" is just fine.
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.http://digitalbazaar.com
>
>