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

Re: [Payments Architecture] A vision statement for the web payments architecture work

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 22:28:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLnK1ZVczKKVEqyDjdrgY-z2pO-oh-kGqCJDz-NS8BgRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 22 May 2015 at 15:07, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:

> I think most are in agreement that decentralized is better than
> centralized for a democratised system where the goal is to give no party an
> advantage over others purely due to the architecture of the system.
>
> Having said that, I'm not sure  what you mean by "payments should be
> decentralized". Can you explain or propose the content you think would be
> appropriate?
>

The web was designed to be a highly connected system where anything can be
connected to anything, what I call A2A.

As such if that architecture is facilitated, it becomes a self healing
network, with relatively few central points of failure.

We've seen that the web can be both used to build centralized structures
and decentralized structures.  Perhaps centralization is winning as of
2015.  Decentralization is a great challenge, and Im not optimistic the IG
can get it right first time, but maybe worthwhile to try.

Depending on design decisions the work produced can lean one way or
another.  One example is that a web page was designed to be like a piece of
paper, so the content is independent of the medium or the location, one way
to do this in linked data is to have arbitrarily many concepts on a single
page, with the page itself being related to HTTP.

One major problem with legacy systems is that, although designed to have a
level playing field, centralization happens, with "too big to fail" points
of centralization.  This was one of the causes of the 2009 crises, and
leads to systemic risk.  Hopefully web payments can have a different
philosophy, and lead to less systemic risk.

In line with your other bullet point "decentralized by design" could
perhaps be a motivator.


>
> On 22 May 2015 at 12:33, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18 May 2015 at 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement for the work we
>>> are undertaking, specifically with regards to the architecture we will be
>>> developing, for payments on the Web.
>>>
>>> The document is intended to express the technical principles we consider
>>> important in the design of the architecture and I'd appreciate some input
>>> on it's content.
>>>
>>> The document is also intended to be short, less than a page, and as such
>>> not too detailed. It's purpose is to frame the design and allow all
>>> stakeholders to agree up front that we are aligned on our vision.
>>>
>>> The audience should be broad, and not necessarily payments or Web
>>> technology experts, but since this is related to the design of a technical
>>> architecture the content will be technical.
>>>
>>> Please have a look at the first draft of this document and send me your
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>>>
>>
>> Does the IG think payments should be decentralized?
>>
>> If so, perhaps a short bullet point on that?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting this started.
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 20:28:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:40 UTC