- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 17:07:06 +0200
- To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Cc: Sam Mbale <smbale@gmail.com>, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLLJvd87oZS-Zcc6mH9rR_Ak5w9+HWep6nket_0FgYVgA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 15:12, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote: > Hey Melvin, > Have a looked at paymentpointers.org? > The voucher could be $vouchersforyou.com/87t88yef76df7td7wtde7twde which > translates to https://vouchersforyou.com/87t88yef76df7td7wtde7twde and is > de-referenceable. > Thanks for the pointer. I possibly had seen an earlier version of this, but thanks for the refresher. I'll add this as a reference, and read through it more carefully. But at first blush, the idea of using the /.well-known/ pattern to deference, in some cases, is appealing. Because then you can build in a discovery mechanism. I think I'd like to model vouchers as a URI, at least in one of its forms, rather than a string such as "$identifer", which is not a URI. But there's no reason the two cant be linked together, somehow. It was helpful to look at this, and it's made is clearer the case where a voucher id and server act as a pair which could be sent to someone, say, in an email. I suppose a very typical pattern along these lines is the password reset. Thanks again for the pointer, very much interested in existing work. > > Adrian > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:43, Sam Mbale <smbale@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> This might off topic, but I thought about what Michiel highlighted: >> >> >> >> >> >> *Maybe start by base64-decoding it? But what would you see then, and how >> would that refer to a party who is willing to "cash" the voucher? There >> could be some indication of some account identifier at some ledger, but for >> that, you would need some more mechanics than just the opaque URI scheme. >> An interesting approach to that problem is Interledger addresses, for >> instance. * >> >> >> This could be a practical example >> New Age of Digital Asset Exchanges - Japan's Largest Gift Card Exchange >> Pioneers Blockchain Expansion >> <http://wire.mpelembe.net/pr-newswire-news-releases/?rkey=20190820EN43448&filter=9768> >> >> Tom Kanazawa, the chairman of Amaten said: *"The current system and >> technology used for gift card is completely obsolete and dates all the way >> back to the mid 90s. It has never evolved to match today's digital world. >> It still suffers from basic fundamental shortcomings and is very >> inconvenient. I believe that the gift card industry can be a perfect use >> case for blockchain. The two are a completely natural fit.**We have >> chosen to partner with the best blockchain technology providers in the >> space, aelf, because they offer the scalability, dedicated sidechains and >> smart contract modules that we very much need to build our service rapidly >> and most cost effectively. We are wholeheartedly excited for the future of >> truly digitized gift card industry."* >> >> All the best >> Sam >> >> >> >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 07:39, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Melvin, >>> >>> Great topic! I like how the scheme is very generic, but maybe at the >>> same time that's a downside, because how would you dereference >>> 'urn:voucher:12345abcd ...'? Maybe start by base64-decoding it? But what >>> would you see then, and how would that refer to a party who is willing to >>> "cash" the voucher? There could be some indication of some account >>> identifier at some ledger, but for that, you would need some more mechanics >>> than just the opaque URI scheme. An interesting approach to that problem is >>> Interledger addresses, for instance. >>> >>> I would say there are generally two types of vouchers, relational (where >>> the issuer has some social connection to the redeemer) and anonymous (where >>> the voucher has a more universal value, against some anonymous "bubble"). >>> If you're interested in peer-to-peer vouchers rather than anonymous ones, >>> then may I take this opportunity to plug the Network Money mailing list I >>> started last year, particularly this post in which I concluded that maybe >>> peer-to-peer money is in the end not really what people want: >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/network-money/Z2zAyX1R8Xo. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michiel. >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 5:02 PM Melvin Carvalho < >>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have written a payment server that can use arbitrarily many >>>> authentication methods on the web. >>>> >>>> The outcome of that authentication is to return a verified URI. You >>>> could think of it as a super set of WebID, DID, user addresses and so on. >>>> >>>> One thing I'd like to do is have a voucher system. So the idea with a >>>> voucher is that it has a special code, say you email it to someone, or have >>>> a scratch card or something. >>>> >>>> Then when that code is shown the back end is able to let the user spend >>>> whatever balance it is for. So it's a long the lines of a voucher, a >>>> shared secret or a one time password. >>>> >>>> This may be similar to a bearer token, im not sure, as Im not so >>>> familiar with those. >>>> >>>> My question in all this is, given that I need a URI that is linked to >>>> the voucher. Is there something existing I can use. Or, is there some >>>> sensible standard we can start experimenting with. >>>> >>>> The idea I had was to use the URI >>>> >>>> *urn:voucher:12345abcd ...* >>>> >>>> And if that appears in the request you know. the user can spend the >>>> voucher, and that allows me to build an app. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts, ideas or previous work that can be reused here? >>>> >>>
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2019 15:07:44 UTC