Re: Seeing the forrest from the BTCs

On 2015-01-20 08:46, Daniel.Buchner wrote:
> No, I'm advocating Bitcoin as the rail, not the currency.
>
> Users would never hold Bitcoin prior to a purchase (unless they wanted to for some reason), and right when they initiate a buy, the USD/Euro/fiat wallet provider they choose would instantly convert to BTC JIT under the covers solely to use the Bitcoin network as the transmission rail for the value, and enable a simple, universal, payment UX flow. On the other end the BTC would be instantly converted back to the local fiat and neither party would have held Bitcoin at any point.
>
> This does a few things:
>
> - Eliminates the volatility issues (users never hold Bitcoin)
> - Allows all UAs to implement against Bitcoin's open APIs and do amazing things that are nearly impossible with a standard that just slaps an intermediate layer between the user and legacy payment mechanisms
> - Doesn't exclude banks and other legacy monetary institutions (your bank could be a wallet provider)
> - Standardizes the value transfer mechanism by default
> - Inherently simplifies payment flows - the flow of a BTC transfer is already 1 or 0 click
>
> Bitreserve already does this: http://vimeo.com/104126081
>
> - Daniel
> ________________________________________
> From: Anders Rundgren [anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:31 PM
> To: Daniel.Buchner; "Web Payments CG ý[public-webpayments@w3.org]ý"
> Subject: Re: Seeing the forrest from the BTCs
>
> Hi Daniel,
> I have no problems understanding and agreeing with what you write with one exception:
> The mixing of BTC and "Ordinary Money".
>
> Is it correct that you advocate using BTC as a universal currency/value which could be automatically exchanged during transactions?
> I.e. BTC would be like the dollar has (effectively) been?
>
> Anders
>
> On 2015-01-20 05:01, Daniel.Buchner wrote:
>
> Hey Folks,
>
> I've been thinking a lot about payments the last few weeks from the perspective of a consumer, retailer, and CG/IG/WG member. In doing so I came up with a few important concerns/requirements for each stakeholder-type:
>
> Consumer
>
>    *   Let me pay easily with a single simplified solution, and let the mechanism, medium, and flow be ubiquitous.
>    *   Let me pay securely without the inherent susceptibility to ID theft, fraud, and malicious activity that is common with current mediums (ex: credit cards)
>
> Retailer
>
>    *   The solution should be easy to integrate
>    *   The solution needs to be more secure than the status quo
>    *   The solution should lower/eliminate fees and costs, if possible
>    *   The solution should allow us to easily account for our unique business logic (different consumer interfaces and internal processing requirements)
>
> CG/IG/WG Members
>
>    *   Don't force numerous, hefty specs on implementers that try to do it all
>    *   Make sure user stories are priority #1
>    *   Don't pit forward-looking solutions against legacy ones in the name of unifying all current mechanisms/mediums of payment
>
> What in the world fulfills all of these points that we can shape into something actionable? There is an option, but it requires two things:
>
>    1.  Completely separate development of solution meant to unite legacy payment systems from an unencumbered, future-forward solution based on a completely open payment network
>    2.  Fundamentally modify how we view Bitcoin as that latter solution
>
> Most Bitcoin proponents pour the majority of their effort into pushing Bitcoin as a currency (it could be at some point in the future), but what if that's not the right way to think about the opportunity Bitcoin presents us as a payment standards-based group? Instead, what if we used Bitcoin for the thing it has done well since day 1: transport value across an open network.
>
> In the coming months you will see Bitcoin companies move to offer USD wallets (some already are - Coinbase, Bitreserve, etc.). This raises an interesting question: what if users held local fiat currency in a provider's wallet and could purchase anything through one simple, unified flow without ever knowing the system performs on-the-fly conversion between Bitcoin and back to transfer funds? Here's what this would mean:
>
>    *   Any company/actor could leverage this simple, unified payment rail/solution (Coinbase, traditional bank, browser, app, etc.)
>    *   Users would realize all the benefits of a simple, universal payment system without needing to understand, care about, or ever even hear about the nerdy Bitcoin tech that acts as the rail
>    *   The scope and effort required on the part of UAs shrinks dramatically
>    *   Site/app integration is also radically simplified (for some sites/apps it can be as easy as adding a link to their pages/views)
>    *   Business costs drop for every party involved
>
> Let me know what you think.

I don't see how Secure Elements (EMV), PIN-codes, etc. could become a part of this scheme without effectively getting back to square one.

IMO, the #1 problem is that the client-platform haven't kept up with the (generally very poorly articulated) requirements.  It apparently takes an Apple to do that but then it only works using their network :-(

Sometimes I hear that you don't need strong security for low-value payments.  But then you suddenly need TWO solutions!  There's no 'cost' involved using strong security and with an intelligent local wallet you can eliminate PIN-code (or TouchID) hassles for infrequent low-value transactions which enables very secure 1-click payments.  Zero-click payments is something I believe we can live without.

If Zero-click payments really are important, they should be architected in another way than has been aired on this list to have chance getting traction.  In essence, the Link + the Amount must be GUI-wise and execution-wise be "owned" by the UA/Wallet.

Anders

>
>
> - Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 09:21:40 UTC