- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:22:03 +0200
- To: Andrew Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Sam Mbale <smbale@gmail.com>, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhL-+dtXgTOzbb7qSS3PGwQHDBpDV_ShSVMKo4jC9Q+crQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:19, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Andrew Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So, the core inception is a password or unlock code/key? >> >> Where is the password stored? >> > > Yes. You could call it a shared secret. Or an unmissable string. > > >> >> If you say brain, what if someone finds out your password? They would >> walk into your identity. >> > > Same like a cookie. Only the relevant parties share the secret. > > >> >> The zero-vouch system. ‘I vouch for this and I am sovereign.’ >> >> So, if that is the case, can you ask the issuer of the voucher to >> validate the voucher before it is spent? >> > > You could do that yes. Using that you can extend the places where the > voucher can be used, but the downside is that it requires more trust. > That should read unguessable. Storing would simply be in a JSON file, or DB etc. it's just a string, many solutions here. Vouchers by nature are designed for one time use. So think of it like a password reset code. They tend to expire, to prevent the threat of someone getting the code. > > >> >> >> On 21 Aug BE 2562, at 1:49 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >>> Adrian >>> >> >> Regarding the lookup of a voucher. I think we can register >> >> /.well-known/voucher/voucher_id >> >> For those that want to provide more info >> >> This would be declarative and be open ended as to the nature of the >> voucher >> >> As mentioned expiry is an important field. But I think this could also >> be generalized. Because once you have declarative definitions you can >> become fully turing complete. Smart "web" contracts if you like, can be >> baked into a voucher, for various use cases. >> >> For example expiry is simply a voucher plus a time function. (if before >> date X, value = 100% face value) I like the thought experiment of thinking >> of these things as programmable in a modern sense. ie functional, >> chainable, conditional, returning promises etc. Doesnt have to be in the >> spec, this can simply be an extension of the voucher definition when it >> gets dereferenced. >> >> >>> >>> 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 Wednesday, 21 August 2019 09:22:37 UTC