W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2015

Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:36:52 -0400
Message-ID: <553144B4.5000600@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Tony Camero <tonycamerobiz@gmail.com>
CC: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 04/17/2015 01:26 PM, Tony Camero wrote:
> 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

You *can* buy happiness with web payments. However, it's in standardized 
form, so it may not be what you want.

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


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 17:37:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:39 UTC