Re: Seeing the forrest from the BTCs

On 20 January 2015 at 12:41, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> What you describe appears to be exactly what Ripple (and by extension
> Stellar) are trying to do.
> There are some advantages to using them over Bitcoin (from a technical
> perspective) as they were designed with this use case from day 1.
> The advantage Bitcoin has is it's network effects and current market
> dominance.
>
> I'd suggest reading the Ripple Deep Dive document (
> https://ripple.com/ripple-deep-dive/) if you haven't already. It
> highlights some issues with what you propose and also how Ripple attempts
> to solve these.
> Stellar is interesting because they appear to have simply forked the
> Ripple code (which anyone can do) and then got some very powerful support
> to use this tech as the basis for promoting financial inclusion.
>

Ripple and stellar are interesting.  I like ripple and have contributed to
its source and ran the first explorer.  One slight issue with ripple is
that folks have been unable to find the first 32,000 entries in the ledger
to my best knowledge.  Stellar isnt 'just another fork', many of the key
ripple devs run it.

I like both systems, it would be good to have a universal linked data model
for the trust lines, gateways and markets that they introduce.


>
> I think Ander's point is very valid. It is easy (easier?) to develop
> standards for payments using web technology as the rails if we are only
> concerned with online commerce.
> Brick and mortar stores have physical points of service which would need
> to somehow tie into this whole new set of rails.
>
> To Melvin's point, the appealing proposition of ignoring legacy and
> building for the future in the hope that eventually the old will die out in
> favour of the new is not supported by the IG charter.
>

To clarify, I dont want to ignore legacy banking.  It's just that if
banking were invented today in the time of computers and electronic media,
it would be done differently.  I'd like to embrace new technology for it's
own end as well as applying it to make technology designed in another era
as efficient as it can be.


>
> Adrian
>
>
> On 20 January 2015 at 11:36, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 20 January 2015 at 05:01, Daniel.Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@target.com>
>> 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 like the separation of legacy finance and future finance.  But the
>> charter is heavily slanted to legacy finance.  Bitcoin or crypto currencies
>> are mentioned nowhere by the editors.  In theory the specs are neutral to
>> the currency, but for me there's an editorial bias there.
>>
>> I see payments evolving as you describe, with bitcoin becoming the
>> reserve currency of the internet.  I'll note that the web is a far larger
>> scaled network for transferring value over HTTP and now web sockets.  I'd
>> like to work at the intersection of those two great and relatively new
>> technologies to make money easier, safer and more user friendly.
>>
>> It's just not 100% clear the overlap of this work and the specs
>> produced.  I'll definitely be trying to reuse as much of she specs produced
>> here as possible.  But I dont know how to make bitcoin more prominent in
>> this group other than to create implementations.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>