Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

I don't see any mention or consideration to double opt-in style payment
confirmations from the end user, this is something that is used often in
m-commerce payments(which is my background) before taking billed messages.

SMS billing requires in most countries confirmation (Usually a 'y' as a
response in a text) before billed messages are sent and most carriers
require an out of band confirmation too (Which can mostly be avoided by
having the correct wording on the interface initiating the billing).

Would it be worth raising a use case regarding a payment provider
disclosing what limits apply to the current context the user is in? So for
example mcommerce payments usually had quotas per day, provider and other
limitations. This strikes me as similar to fraud protection on cards too.

I also don't see any use cases for managing and editing stored payment
details (Similar to the credential management API).


On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:07 AM Timothy Holborn <>

> HI All,
> I've been reading the thread; and became concerned that the P2P argument
> may 'unintentionally' extend to other use-cases beyond the scope of
> sending/receiving USD/AUD/ETC to 'cash equivalents', which may be
> interpreted in an array of different ways, by different courts; so
> therefore wrote a bit about my considerations.
> I've spent several hours drafting this email, Yet, it appears to require
> far more thought than i have time to draft - so, i'm sending AS IS.
> ___________________________________________________________________
> I think there is a distinct lack of support for micro-payments, which is
> an important function to support - yet whether the P2P function is required
> for that bit - i'm not sure...  Areas that make more sense, is when people
> are sending coins, not bundles of cash from Party A to Party B, (that is;
> when it's 1m Parties to party B) to some degree the environment still needs
> legislation - but perhaps in a different manner than would be required for
> large-sums.
> Equally; if 1m parties send $1 to party B - then party B needs to send
> that 1M somewhere else before it becomes usable...
> I think most people expect a level of protection, security and safety for
> commercial operations who operate as businesses that store your funds
> securely.  Whilst i do see an array of enormous benefits in 'innovation'
> throughout that sector; i can also appreciate the difficulties in doing so
> safely, for all parties involved. (assuming all parties acting in
> good-faith, etc. which unfortunately, is not always the case for every
> situation involving any particular person at the time of every particular
> event, etc.)
> In the thinking that money/cash is simply a federal government 'token'
> system and that should web-users exist in territories still using gold
> equivalents, they're not able to transmit that over the web; and that, we'd
> prefer not to own 3d printers or receive digitally copyrighted 'art', for
> the purpose of avoiding the underlying issues...
> Yet the field, from a high-level, is an extremely complex field of life -
> IM(H²)O, and the management of it, much like many other important issues,
> is fraught with good intentions and bad examples.
> (unfinished, draft thoughts below, that may have inaccurate legal
> concepts...).
> - In an attempt to keep the viewpoint about technology standards, rather
> than the seemingly necessary technology politics discussions;
> The concept of issuance & insurance of a token that represents currency
> has probably always required state or federal backing in the physical world
> as to ensure the token was valid, and meritoriously so.
> Whether it be a symbol marked on an object of precious metal, the
> replacement of precious metal with alternative ingredients using the same
> markings; or more sophisticated production methods to provide the same
> function through the delivery of currency or IOU; perhaps the argument
> herein, is that digital technology now offers a 'web way' of doing it
> (regardless of how politically / economically destabilising that be) and
> the scientists argue that it should be considered for standardisation.
> Equally at times the scientists can be quite diligent in arguing that
> 'only the code constitutes' a meaningful outcome, or meritorious work, or a
> statement of 'ownership' over an entire embodiment of work.  Whilst
> elements of this is true, it is in the whole untrue - as we all should
> know.  Yet our business systems do not support many alternatives as yet.
> SIMPLE EXAMPLE: If a person is interviewed for the purpose of a biography;
> it is the writer of that biography that obtains the 'author' credit
> no-matter how many hours interviewing the interviewee and subject of the
> book; they are not 'the author'.  The subject is also not the 'publisher'.
> As such, the laws pursuant to how they're financially acknowledged is
> different.  This is similarly the case for individuals contributing
> elements to a greater piece of work that no one individual could do, in a
> reasonable timeframe, solely upon their own physical labour.
> - It has always been explained to me that these technologies in effect
> provide a form of IOU or (implied / explicit) contract, which in-turn have
> an array of business cases; including the use of the technology as a means
> for currency supply. i.e. a bitcoin; yet the same methodology applies to an
> agreement - which is of particular concern in relation to 'web-payments'
> for its application upon works where a commercial return is born by an
> entity entitled or capable of using work produced by 3rd parties.
> In the case of innovation; there is a double-dichotomy; to example this,
> *'Free Works'*
> Between the need and desire to have 'one web', and therefore the use of
> open standards; in consideration that,perhaps the origins of the W3C
> related to a patent pool for browsers; and that, today additional
> communities are developing which means people are contributing freely
> towards something that is best exploited by large institutional members.
> Herein, is 'function and form' to the concept of 'open source' which is to
> provide an alternative to an unworkable production methodology of
> 'commercial licenses', which through the application of semantic reasoning
> systems may or may not face future challenges; yet broadly,
> the first dichotomy is that without contributing freely the capacity to
> achieve a standardised outcome will not work.  This is at the cost of the
> contributors who may or may not be able to address the financial
> repercussions of this ideological approach in a manner that is similarly,
> economically beneficial than if they'd taken a less sustainable approach
> and simply sought the cash.
> In-turn, people are not readily employed to do this work; as it would not
> be commercially viable to do so. Therefore the resources made available to
> the work are diminished due to a lack of capacity to 'feed, cloth and
> house' the people contributing to a standard, through the meritorious work
> of making an attempt to contribute positively to a standard.
> The second aspect is when the innovation curve[1] is applied; in that,
> Inventors often produce something prior to anyone else having used it, and
> therefore - at a time where no 'market' has been established.  Whereas
> traditional copyright, i argue, copyright principles at the time of
> authorship denoted an embodiment of liberty, the application of these laws
> to digital / web, is notoriously difficult; and that, in part it is likely
> due to the inability for the web to track 'transactions' of counterparts to
> a larger embodiment; in which the domain of individuals most often occurs,
> due to the operational sophistication required to deliver 'products' (being
> embodiments of accumulative works from a large number of individual
> contributors) to market, providing support for broader utility throughout
> the innovation curve and therein; delivered upon the prerequisite of often
> significant infrastructure, often reasonably, far beyond the capacities of
> (an) inventor/s to have available (especially if they've been funding the
> cost of their innovation period, to produce the product thats found in
> future, to be valuable).
> - more broadly; people are progressively producing 'digitally born'
> products, which are then often attributed to services; such as the
> development of a website template, slide pack, agreement, digitally
> transmitted document containing IPR; and of course, services - such as
> telephony systems, public transport payment systems, etc.
> *Future Business Systems*; we might find means to attribute contributors
> as to provide a remunerative policy based on % of income in relation to
> contribution and use overtime of the work attributed to that contributor.
>  whilst this is one new form of business system, that is currently not very
> well supported, it is an example of a new business systems that may be
> applied in future.  These sorts of business systems also feature risks, and
> the films have told us; we do not want to be paying a monthly fee for a
> heart replacement and if we cannot pay that fee, loose the heart.  There
> are a lot of 'evil' ways these sorts of things could be applied, and
> perhaps some might argue that the risk is too great and therefore good
> people should be paid nothin; yet, i don't think that's been working for
> humanity...
> Payment systems, to the discomfort of many, are changing multilaterally.
> Support for national legal entities to enter into agreement is continuously
> under threat and a decision should be made about whether or not it will be
> supported; and what forms of arbitration systems are required to provide
> the necessary safeguards.  I do not think this is holistically the role of
> a web-standards group in the traditional form; yet, these sorts of
> decisions are being made more broadly and technology obviously plays an
> important role in realising whatever ideological stance is defined and
> rationalised, to be in the public interest.
> *Trends: *as the transition to digitally networked systems has occurred;
> as have changes.
> - Often citizens will need to provide access to cash in advance of using a
> service (less often in arrears). Where in advance, organisations can then
> use that cash in a financial department to improve earnings.  The
> technicalities around this form of commercial behaviour are outside of
> scope; the underlying principle however, considers whether 'cash' has a
> digital equivalent.
> Some might argue that the digital equivalent is a bank-account; yet that's
> wasn't very secure for a citizen in the 1930's, and i'm not sure whether it
> became a problem more recently; certainly having an alternative has been
> important throughout history.  In-turn the consideration might be that
> should it only be a problem in disaster senarios, then it gets to the
> ideological choice of who gets the food first; in which case, it's still
> most likely outside of scope.
> Another 'cash' element; is actually the means for an individual to
> independently store 'digital cash' securely, independent of a 3rd party
> provider that is less resilient and/or dependent upon the banking system,
> which then attributes conceptually to the risk-matrix around the technology
> solution. Using the concept of 'cash' to make in-effect a commercial
> opportunity for sophisticated yet less regulated entities to provide a
> 'banking alternative' is not actually about providing a form of 'cash' but
> rather perhaps, an ideological dispute about the cost and ramifications of
> building a banking business; both of which, are likely out of scope.
> With respect to the regulatory requirements around P2P Payments; another
> query would be whether and how this form of legislation applies
> internationally.  As we're aware, the web is seeking ways to connect the
> rest of humanity.  Perhaps the rules on how to improve circumstances for
> humanity, have an array of different attributions when it comes to
> legislation in this area, and should therefore be considered when designing
> international web standards.
> I consider that a multitude of aspects surrounding the utility of 'crypto
> based p2p payment concepts'; however if a market-evaluation was undertaken
> upon the security, function and safety for individuals of crypto; due to an
> array of drivers,
> I'm not actually sure it works.  Scientifically in terms of the
> destructibility or invulnerability of the produced 'coin' artefact; it
> speculate it does, yet on different tiers of the overall eco-system,
> it does not appear to reasonably protect society or every-day end-users;
> which is embodied through an array of historical facts including (but not
> exclusive to) companies that act like banks disappearing overnight,
> claiming 'thief', remarkable changes to the value of the currency; methods
> in how 'wallets' are made available and the lack of support for maintaining
> access to the particulars that are mandatorily required in-order to
> maintain access to the crypto-artifacts (my phones died on occasion, as an
> example... ) These are not necessarily technology problems; but rather,
> business problems about how these systems are supported - and the fact of
> the case likely is - that the regulation around the banking industry,
> provides the mechanic to deliver those consumer-protection solutions that
> perhaps, the scientists just don't need. (arguably).
> standardising technology that is still very early stage; within the
> particular domain of 'financial instruments' is a difficult approach and
> for good reason.  This is not to dispute in any-way, the lack of innovation
> within large companies - that is not simply an issue with the banking
> sector; but largely, a problem with large corporations.
> In Australia a large telco made a lot of money out of ISDN and as such,
> did not like the commercialisation of ADSL which resulted in far greater
> bandwidth are far lesser cost...  Of course, this is how telco's operate
> today and very few of the original innovators for the Australian Internet
> Access market; operate today.  They've all been 'swallowed'.  Throughout
> the introduction of BitCoin and related technologies, innovation within the
> banking sector has accelerated remarkably.  We're got 'apps', and new
> hardware functions on phones to support it.  All sorts of very positive
> outcomes, arguably born due to the works of few individuals who created
> solutions, without the billions of dollars required to do it properly,
> proving the market and therefore stimulating investment and development of
> better payment systems.
> The CG probably has a role to play in continuing this innovation trend.
> However, I'm not sure it's supported by W3C.  CG's provide an array of
> benefits for web-innovators, that i believe will continue to grow and
> develop.  In-turn not all things produced by a CG are necessarily designed
> for IG and WG iterative designs.  This is not to suggest in anyway that the
> facilitation of innovation within CG's does not warrant support; nor that
> it should be deemed a failure in all cases, that a CG does not progress to
> latter iterative design functions provided by W3.
> Of course; this is my personal interpretation of which i'm describing to
> simply put forward some of my views as an individual, within a particularly
> complicated domain.
> *Application of P2P for IOUs*
> The technical process of producing a P2P payment is to my understanding in
> effect, the capacity to produce an IOU and/or digital attribution to the
> trade of one digital 'thing' with another; and/or a promise / condition.
> The web has experienced enormous issues around copyright.   I've been
> following the issues recently as netflix (a major web-data driver) and
> other US organisations like them continue to commercial products that are
> receiving significant attention and praise from users throughout the world.
> *Article I, Section 8 <>,
> Clause 8* of the United States Constitution
> <>, known as the *Copyright
> Clause*, empowers the United States Congress
> <>:
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries.
> source:
> Whereas US content companies had issue with the use of their works without
> payment / license; Interestingly; As US Companies now provide services upon
> the back of US products that originated in the US (i.e. AppleID) the
> conversation is changing [2].
> I personally find this domain of very loud voices particularly
> interesting; as the decisions made within this domain can have remarkable
> effects throughout other sectors including pharmaceuticals and other patent
> related markets (IPR) and as such, a field of particular personal concern
> and attention...
> When feeling less sophisticated, I might argue; that given track record,
> if an Australian company commercialised a web-browser, *we'd get
> advertising provided by the browser company, licensing required for the
> browser and any content - including a tiered pricing system for locally
> available web-pages and internationally available web-pages, that would
> then likely require some form of government approval prior to publication;
> and a syndication of nationally controlled login systems (enabled by US
> providers, perhaps providing licensing revenue back via that conduit) which
> could then be fed into a tracking system; as the only plausible means for
> commercialising a product that would in-turn, become sub-standard.*
> Whilst the above is certainly a fantasy (whether or not it might have been
> accurate save the foresight of those who did make the problem) perhaps part
> of it, is that it took quite some time in the 90's to convince government
> that having a web-site was a good idea...   Only really geeks had
> computers, tinkering away - before or after modems appeared.  This is not
> the case today.  The number, type and constitution of web-stakeholders are
> so very vast, and often it's difficult to understand who's opinion matters;
> and who's doesn't, without even considering the ledger upon which that
> evaluation is made...
> Whilst I do not want to live in a world where everyone needs a legal
> degree; as that is the most important skills-set, perhaps therein is a
> point.
> We all depend on internet.  Today and in ways we do not imagine in the
> future, whether we've got shelter, food, medicine, proper social context /
> order, whether our system of government works or not, how we participate in
> civics, life, society - all depends on the data that's being 'transmitted'
> on the internet by the individual, who increasingly depends upon it for
> survival.
> The capacity for ANY web-user to make a declaration and should that
> declaration be received and agreed to; that the format of that document be
> capable of an embodiment that can be used in a court-room as evidence of
> fact, is in my opinion amongst the most important tasks that we should
> attend to.
> As described to me; this means, it's an IOU.  And that IOU could state;
> 'you receive this document on the conditions outlined in the contract'
> or
> 'this is my medical record, you shall use it pursuant to the conditions
> outlined in our agreement (and law)'
> or
> 'i promise to pay you $10' (perhaps even delivered as a 3d printed object
> or other creative work, as to engender the support of traditional avenues
> of law, such as copyright)
> I'm not sure how the law distinguishes between one form of promise / IOU
> and another; when progressively everything we do, has a financial value to
> it.  Even using the toilet has a value as a proportion of the energy, water
> and property accounting; and digital doesn't care how small the amount it,
> it just logs things.
> When it gets to logging; well, that's actually the underlying thing.
> You have a birth certificate and other identity data.  Will we live in a
> world where a service providers terms may require you to provide some sort
> of fee prior to being furnished with the opportunity to be a proven
> entity?  Will the functions protecting me from a social decision in this
> area be one of political substance, where parties change every few years,
> or will it be built into the system?  We've never, as humanity, needed to
> consider building systemic functions that consider these sorts of
> questions...  Yet today, i think we're able to distinctly consider that
> some decisions have been made and we will need to choose how to evolve.
> Do i need to store my birth certificate on google? Facebook? My Bank
> Account?  does the federal government have one system, that they may deny
> me access to if i wrote a subjective paper they disagreed with strongly -
> or if they were unhappy about how my relationship changed with a
> powerful-persons daughter.  IMHO, our shared-values state that issues,
> disputes, should be settled in a court-room should other means not be
> effective in sorting an issue out; however, in todays world - what
> information is easily presented by an individual to a court, about a matter
> - regardless of where that information is stored.
> in another conceptual user-story; somehow films get released onto the web,
> sometimes prior to release.  If it is an extremely bad film; is it a viable
> commercial strategy to, rather than paying for distribution costs, release
> it; then use a legal strategy to sue the people who downloaded it to
> receive more remunerative benefit than may have eventuated if it was
> released through traditional means?
> It takes time to get to a court, is someone able to wander down to a
> police station with the data and have something actioned immediately as the
> document is indisputable? Whilst the question about what use-cases these
> sorts of outcomes may apply is outside of scope; i view the capacity for
> the system to have that functionality, to be able to track an explicit act
> of 'theft' for instance, most likely to be part of the scope; which in my
> view, probably relates to purchase-orders and digital receipts amongst
> other things.  Certainly part of the ramifications is that very aggressive
> business cases can be made and what we're probably attempting to do
> overall, is to support legitimate trade and to diminish the viability of
> commercial acts that are designed to be exploitative.
> Ideologically therein, i think its important that the product of a large
> company is, to our best endevours, supported and protected to the same
> level as that of an individual.  Herein, the greater volume of work is in
> addressing the vulnerabilities of individuals, as corporations have many
> sophisticated means to protect their products should they choose to use it,
> including but not exclusive to; available capital for sophisticated legal
> projects. Should a product of an individual be deemed the property of a
> large company who has the capacity to take, protect and use it for
> commercial purpose in a sophisticated commercial eco-system,
> Who deserves the right to protection under the law, in real-terms, and
> what is the cost of that protection....
> How does the technical process of defining standards provide capacity; and
> what is the ideology we should use in considering how that capacity is made
> available to humanity.
> my understanding of this area, is that it is a field of 'web science'...
> The now very long response is making an attempt to acknowledge the fact
> that between individuals, people make agreements that have financial
> attributions whether they be at the cost or benefit of one or both parties.
> In the short-term, i think it's incredibly important that this function
> can provide and/or facilitate the task of 'intellectual property' related
> transactions, without necessarily the means of tracking the use or defining
> the terms of use; for those transactions (other than enabling the use of
> RDF to provide a description, etc.) and creative commons as an example,
> provides some sense around how that might work; even though, the majority
> of legitimate use for a creative-commons licensed article or asset is
> cost-free.
> Perhaps also, more tangibly; what is also implied is the existing
> use-cases of P2P Financial Instruments[3]. Therein, perhaps the reality of
> the case is that the area is complimentary to 'web-payments' but outside of
> scope (which i would view to be a very poor practical outcome).
> I acknowledge the consideration that the web has muddied the definitions
> throughout the traditional economic and financial sectors; and that, due to
> 'convergence', these definitions will likely need to be adapted and
> developed.
> Technology, whether it's standardised or otherwise, can provide
> recognition for every incremental contribution by an array of parties
> towards the production of a product; whether that be a piece of software, a
> document, a film. The act of theft is illegal, perhaps everywhere on earth.
> it is a 'shared value' alongside many others.
> Problems exist where existing legal structures are not 'web compatible'
> and underlying that lack of 'web compatibility' are laws that may in
> strict-terms, make the use of internet illegal; thereafter illustrating the
> lack of maintenance to our system of law, that underpins a great array of
> problems; without the consideration needed to get to the legitimate path of
> today let alone, how to define structures for the future.   Whether it be
> contract law, where contracts state 'choice of law California' as part of
> the TOS for a major international website that by definition may result in
> the world needing to consider copyright in Californian terms; or the
> ideology of california upon the world - i doubt this is intentionally
> defined, but rather subject to a lack of maintenance.  Whether the groups
> chooses to go with the path that supports the market conditions where a
> lack of legal maintenance exists; or whether the group chooses to take the
> more dangerous path, is absolutely a very difficult path...
> Yet; the resolution of P2P contracts / payments - somewhat fixes an array
> of problems, which should be considered more holistically by stakeholders
> who lets face it, in W3C terms - those few VCs and the major world-wide
> portals supported by them; well, the world isn't going to accept 'choice of
> law california' for ever; they don't like youtube as a branded product
> delivering TV more cheaply than the local national broadcasters, and this
> is the unfortunate situation and questions surrounding change and how to
> support it.
> IMHO; if we're doing our job well, we should be able to aid the party
> spending their time doing that work; by providing a digital means to have
> it acknowledged and remunerated in a manner that highlights sociologically
> that people are better contributing to the benefit of humanity rather than
> to the detriment of it.  When we automate systems, take the need for people
> to participate, arguably, we also automate the legal systems attached to
> that behaviour. payment is important.
> ATM: the bulk of humanity pays to use internet; to evaluate this, it would
> be interesting to see an economics (RDF) graph for how money is made by
> whom on the web, split into entity type, location, etc.  The critical
> consideration herein; is whether P2P between unincorporated entities who
> have no physical relationship and/or contract collaboratively make-money as
> a % of gross internet economy; and, P2P entities who have or do not have a
> remunerative contract with an incorporated entity; makes money as a % of
> gross internet economy.
> With respect to broader economics; I also think the implication of these
> types of new business systems is broader, far broader.
> P2P data may be applied to identify, for instance, which solar panels are
> produced by a factory that dumps toxic factory waste down a nearby river.
> Business cases can be applied to commerce; but involve IP in ways i do not
> think envisaged in relation to traditional systems, that embody the 'birth
> to death' lifecycle that is increasingly carried out digitally, in
> affiliation to internet transmission for economic purpose over the
> lifecycle.
> From the ages of trading over thousands of years; to the production of the
> magna carta, the US Constitution, fiat currency and the proliferation of
> the web; payments is underpinned by a complex field of web-science that the
> former models have not envisaged to the degree necessary as to provide
> society safety.  The possibility of being able to automagically process
> such granular information about any particular transactional chain is
> something i'm really, very interested in.
> *In summary*
> I do not think its reasonable to suggest P2P Payments is easy or simple;
> therein, I'm alerted to the consideration that a 'line in the sand' is
> being made to not support the capacity for someone to claim a fee, in
> relation to something they've produced and agreed to in relation to
> Web-Payment Standards.
> Sounds like a good IGF topic IMHO,
> I'm sure in an effort to support accountability systems, the more data the
> better.  In-Good Faith, I cannot imagine that anyone wants to diminish the
> work of good people or support the wrong person, due to a lack of data,
>  and/or send the wrong person going to jail or other 'punishment' for
> 'gaming' a system designed not to provide available and accessible
> evidence.
> Today, we've even got very large companies waiting so long for
> remunerative benefit for their work [4] that many much smaller individuals
> simply could not make the undertaking to claim rightfully, economic
> participation for their work.
> In simple terms - the law does not apply to those people.
> we simply do not have (access to) that data, and we all depend upon it.
> I hope we can make a contribution towards something that is good for
> humanity, not something that is opportunistic.  I, for one, do not want to
> support those intentionally opportunistic people in their endeavours to
> lead and define the world we live in, into the future, and passionately so.
> I therefore hope that in the short-term, whilst i can understand why P2P
> Financial Payments may not be explicitly supported; that other contractual
> 'evidence' use-cases are supported (in conjunction with the Credentials
> works), which may in-turn include IOU use-cases.
> I like the idea of producing 'something' that becomes 'attributed' to be
> contributory towards something bigger involving more parties; to which the
> production participants engender a benefit as a result of successful
> commercialisation / use by the market; rather than engendering the benefit
> for something that may or may not become useful and/or mandatorily
> supporting that type of engagement ideology; as the best 'innovators' do it
> because they kinda need to, rather than because that's how they make 'the
> big bucks' (regardless of whether or not it works...)
> Cheers,
> Tim.H
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> The practice Peer to Peer agreements
> On 18 April 2015 at 14:16, Manu Sporny <> wrote:
>> On 04/16/2015 08:21 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
>> > I admit my reasoning there seems a bit speculative (in fact,
>> > hot-headed), and towards the conspiracy theory end of the continuum
>> > -- but, now Melvin's come back with some data that supports it; thank
>> > you. ;-)
>> >
>> > And even having calmed down, I'm still thinking that shunting off
>> > the simplest A->B payments between two people as 'Future Work' is a
>> > mistake (and a slightly suspicious one).
>> Let me try and explain why those of us that are involved in this work
>> are nervous about working on peer-to-peer payments.
>> The Web Payments IG is still working through the person-to-person
>> payments scenarios. The technology for p2p payments is incredibly
>> simple, but the regulation around it is fantastically complex and
>> expensive to comply with. The price for misreading the regulation is
>> extremely steep. You can read more about it here:
>> Here's why work in the area is going slowly:
>> It is a felony to engage in money transmission without a license in any
>> state that requires a license to operate.
>> I remember being a speaker at a conference with Charlie Shrem keynoting
>> a few years ago. A year later, Charlie was in jail. Granted, he also did
>> some other shady stuff, but one of the charges filed against him was
>> operating without a money transmission license (aka doing peer-to-peer
>> payments w/o being licensed to do so).
>> There are really no other technologies that W3C is working on where a
>> mistake can land you in jail. Accidentally inject a bug in HTML5 -
>> people get angry. Badly designed feature for CSS3? Developers are
>> annoyed. Botch a crypto implementation - millions of dollars in damages,
>> but not much else. Screw up the deployment of peer-to-peer payments at
>> your organization? *Felony and jail time*.
>> When you say you're going to work on "peer-to-peer payments", what
>> you're really saying is: "I'm going to try and work on this problem
>> knowing that there is a possibility of someone I'm working with (or me)
>> ending up in jail."
>> Personally, I imagine being ripped away from my wife and two young kids
>> for writing a spec, a couple hundred lines of code, and deploying it
> into production... and all the program did was move a virtual thing from
>> one ledger to another.
>> So, that's what's in the back of some of our minds while working on the
>> peer-to-peer payments stuff... and that's why it's going slowly. We
>> don't want to make a mistake.
>> That said, many in the group want to see peer-to-peer payments succeed.
>> The Use Cases document has clearly put Bitcoin (a peer-to-peer payment
>> mechanism) in there as something that we want to support:
>> So, it's in scope and we're trying to move on it as fast as we can. The
>> problem is in deploying it into production. In order to do that at any
>> kind of significant level, you need a heavily capitalized organization
>> (like a bank) that's willing to deploy a new payment system and take the
>> regulatory heat (tens of millions of dollars in fines) when things go
>> wrong.
>> Purchases are far less heavily regulated and much easier to standardize
>> and put into production without risking jail time or stratospheric
>> fines. That's one of the reasons the group is gravitating towards those.
>> The other reason is that purchases constitute far more economic activity
>> than peer-to-peer payments do.
>> Steven, I suggest you tell the Web Payments IG that you think that the
>> group is making a mistake by not taking peer-to-peer payments more
>> seriously. It'll be a review comment, and per W3C process, we're very
>> strongly urged to respond to you. That will force the Web Payments IG to
>> have a discussion about it, on the record, and get back to you.
>> HTH,
>> -- manu
>> --
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments

Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 00:48:42 UTC