Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

Ah... I stand corrected.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

>  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
> > 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.http://digitalbazaar.com
>
>