Yup, that's the crux of it :-) /thomas/ _________________________________ On Aug 17, 2016, at 06:27, John Wunderlich mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> wrote: Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential use cases John Wunderlich, Sent frum a mobile device, Pleez 4give speling erurz "...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" mailto:hardjono@mit.edu> wrote: This might help us in some of our use cases: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf /thomas/ _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the chain of transactions" Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize _____________________________ From: j stollman Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report To: John Wunderlich Cc: Thomas Hardjono , John, This list provides some valuable insight.   The only thing I would change is the Item 3:  Minimal Trust.  My correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust between entities: to "mistrust among entities."  Often the two parties transacting trust each other.  The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction chain.  "Among" captures this more accurately than "between." Jeff ---------------------------------Jeff Stollmanstollman.j@gmail.com+1 202.683.8699 Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.Science advances one funeral at a time.                                    Max Planck On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich wrote: Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential use cases John Wunderlich, Sent frum a mobile device, Pleez 4give speling erurz "...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" wrote: This might help us in some of our use cases:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf/... mailing listDG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

A couple of thoughts: These "blockchain" analyses tend to minimize the role of related technologies, such as identity management and access control, and of knock-on effects resulting from, for instance, harmonization of the record format, of the functions and of the legal text. If we recontextualize "blockchain," it is busting down the proprietary door to banking and finance software, and all the other technologies can follow. "Financial technology" becomes simply "technology," technology that is open source. Borrowing from the Barclays' smart templates vocabulary and Thomas's use case, the layers seem to be: 1. Records, which can be: 1.1. parameters (transaction particulars and paradigms) 1.2. prose (framing - legal, descriptive and other human-readable text) 1.3. code (functions - "smart contracts" - text that computers like to read) 2. synchronization of records 3. execution of code 4. management of collections of records (notably access control) 5. validation of the veracity of collections of records. "Blockchains," in the technical sense provide advantages primarily in layer 5, but "blockchains" in the movement sense highlight the advantages of using common approaches to the other layers. Blockchains in the technical sense are suboptimal (or even unusable) in some of the other layers, notably in management of records. It is hard to see how blockchains can be reconciled with, for instance, the privacy requirements of the GDPR. http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Privacy-Preserving+Data+... Banking is a particularly important use case, that we might wish to consider. The EU Payment Services Directive mandates banking APIs. Banks are, I am told, extremely concerned about data security and fraud, as well as worried about the competitive effects. To demonstrate a vision of "open sourced" financial services in a format that is compatible with blockchains but not dependent on them, I improved on a "bank chain" demo I did in France. This demo is very dense - (not the first time that that can be said of my work) - but it shows a flow of drafting, signature and validation of a payment instrument (check), and has stubs for specifying consequences that need to be implemented in code (a kind of loose-text SCDL - smart contract definition language). This is neither legal nor coding advice, and is certainly wrong in all particulars, but it may help convey the general idea - that open source (blockchain in context) can permit the financial sector and its customers (most of us) to be treated as a decentralized file system, nodes in a "graph." http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/fr/bnpp/a5we/Account/Check/00001/06-Accept.md On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, John Wunderlich wrote:

If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the chain of transactions"

Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize

_____________________________ From: j stollman Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report To: John Wunderlich Cc: Thomas Hardjono ,

John,

This list provides some valuable insight.

The only thing I would change is the Item 3: Minimal Trust. My correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust *between* entities: to "mistrust *among* entities." Often the two parties transacting trust each other. The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction chain. "Among" captures this more accurately than "between."

Jeff

--------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@gmail.com +1 202.683.8699

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:

...

Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential use cases [image: Image] John Wunderlich,

Sent frum a mobile device, Pleez 4give speling erurz

"...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" < hardjono@mit.edu> wrote:

This might help us in some of our use cases:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf/... mailing listDG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

...

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

-- @commonaccord

This report of the World Economic Forum, done by Deloitte, has a consistent thesis - that banks (financial institutions) are the natural home for identity management. It makes the point in great depth. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Blueprint_for_Digital_Identity.pdf On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, James Hazard wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

These "blockchain" analyses tend to minimize the role of related technologies, such as identity management and access control, and of knock-on effects resulting from, for instance, harmonization of the record format, of the functions and of the legal text. If we recontextualize "blockchain," it is busting down the proprietary door to banking and finance software, and all the other technologies can follow. "Financial technology" becomes simply "technology," technology that is open source.

Borrowing from the Barclays' smart templates vocabulary and Thomas's use case, the layers seem to be:

1. Records, which can be: 1.1. parameters (transaction particulars and paradigms) 1.2. prose (framing - legal, descriptive and other human-readable text) 1.3. code (functions - "smart contracts" - text that computers like to read) 2. synchronization of records 3. execution of code 4. management of collections of records (notably access control) 5. validation of the veracity of collections of records.

"Blockchains," in the technical sense provide advantages primarily in layer 5, but "blockchains" in the movement sense highlight the advantages of using common approaches to the other layers. Blockchains in the technical sense are suboptimal (or even unusable) in some of the other layers, notably in management of records. It is hard to see how blockchains can be reconciled with, for instance, the privacy requirements of the GDPR.

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/ Privacy-Preserving+Data+Sharing

Banking is a particularly important use case, that we might wish to consider. The EU Payment Services Directive mandates banking APIs. Banks are, I am told, extremely concerned about data security and fraud, as well as worried about the competitive effects.

To demonstrate a vision of "open sourced" financial services in a format that is compatible with blockchains but not dependent on them, I improved on a "bank chain" demo I did in France. This demo is very dense - (not the first time that that can be said of my work) - but it shows a flow of drafting, signature and validation of a payment instrument (check), and has stubs for specifying consequences that need to be implemented in code (a kind of loose-text SCDL - smart contract definition language).

This is neither legal nor coding advice, and is certainly wrong in all particulars, but it may help convey the general idea - that open source (blockchain in context) can permit the financial sector and its customers (most of us) to be treated as a decentralized file system, nodes in a "graph."

http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/ fr/bnpp/a5we/Account/Check/00001/06-Accept.md

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, John Wunderlich wrote:

...

If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the chain of transactions"

Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize

_____________________________ From: j stollman Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report To: John Wunderlich Cc: Thomas Hardjono ,

John,

This list provides some valuable insight.

The only thing I would change is the Item 3: Minimal Trust. My correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust *between* entities: to "mistrust *among* entities." Often the two parties transacting trust each other. The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction chain. "Among" captures this more accurately than "between."

Jeff

--------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@gmail.com +1 202.683.8699

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:

...

Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential use cases [image: Image] John Wunderlich,

Sent frum a mobile device, Pleez 4give speling erurz

"...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" < hardjono@mit.edu> wrote:

This might help us in some of our use cases:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf/... mailing listDG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

...

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

-- @commonaccord

-- @commonaccord

Hi Martin I agree wholeheartedly with you. The question is how we (the industry) move forward towards what the NSTIC IDESG called out: privacy-preserving identity. The usefulness of an identity is a direct function of the quality of data underlying it. One issue today is that service providers want to "own the identity" of their users, an extension of the belief that they must own the data for business survival. Clearly this does not scale, leading to users have lots of copies of the same personal data all over the Internet. Eve has an old UMA slide diagram showing this copying of data. /thomas/ _________________________________ On Aug 18, 2016, at 08:04, Martin Kuppinger mailto:mk@kuppingercole.com> wrote: Hi, yes, unfortunately they neither act that way nor are they as trusted for that role as most believe. We did research even a couple of years ago on that and it has been verified repeatedly that Telcos including mobile operators are in a better position. They are trusted. And they have far bigger ecosystems than most banks have. Furthermore, I believe that many people still want to keep identity and their own financials somewhat separate. Otherwise, PayPal might be the best home for identity management: Global, large scale,… At least we finally might see an evolution towards an ecosystem of trusted identity providers with sufficient interoperability, particularly for the interactions and transactions that really need trust. Most governments failed in providing such infrastructure. Others, including many startups, tried to fill that gap – and commonly failed. Now, others (and I bet more on telcos than the finance industry), based on new technical options, might succeed. Regards, Martin Von: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] Im Auftrag von James Hazard Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. August 2016 13:58 An: John Wunderlich mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> Cc: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org Betreff: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report This report of the World Economic Forum, done by Deloitte, has a consistent thesis - that banks (financial institutions) are the natural home for identity management. It makes the point in great depth. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_Blueprint_for_Digital_Identity.pdf On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, James Hazard mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts: These "blockchain" analyses tend to minimize the role of related technologies, such as identity management and access control, and of knock-on effects resulting from, for instance, harmonization of the record format, of the functions and of the legal text. If we recontextualize "blockchain," it is busting down the proprietary door to banking and finance software, and all the other technologies can follow. "Financial technology" becomes simply "technology," technology that is open source. Borrowing from the Barclays' smart templates vocabulary and Thomas's use case, the layers seem to be: 1. Records, which can be: 1.1. parameters (transaction particulars and paradigms) 1.2. prose (framing - legal, descriptive and other human-readable text) 1.3. code (functions - "smart contracts" - text that computers like to read) 2. synchronization of records 3. execution of code 4. management of collections of records (notably access control) 5. validation of the veracity of collections of records. "Blockchains," in the technical sense provide advantages primarily in layer 5, but "blockchains" in the movement sense highlight the advantages of using common approaches to the other layers. Blockchains in the technical sense are suboptimal (or even unusable) in some of the other layers, notably in management of records. It is hard to see how blockchains can be reconciled with, for instance, the privacy requirements of the GDPR. http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Privacy-Preserving+Data+... Banking is a particularly important use case, that we might wish to consider. The EU Payment Services Directive mandates banking APIs. Banks are, I am told, extremely concerned about data security and fraud, as well as worried about the competitive effects. To demonstrate a vision of "open sourced" financial services in a format that is compatible with blockchains but not dependent on them, I improved on a "bank chain" demo I did in France. This demo is very dense - (not the first time that that can be said of my work) - but it shows a flow of drafting, signature and validation of a payment instrument (check), and has stubs for specifying consequences that need to be implemented in code (a kind of loose-text SCDL - smart contract definition language). This is neither legal nor coding advice, and is certainly wrong in all particulars, but it may help convey the general idea - that open source (blockchain in context) can permit the financial sector and its customers (most of us) to be treated as a decentralized file system, nodes in a "graph." http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/fr/bnpp/a5we/Account/Check/00001/06-Accept.md On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, John Wunderlich mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> wrote: If I were to pick at that nit, I would suggest "mistrust somewhere in the chain of transactions" Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize _____________________________ From: j stollman mailto:stollman.j@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] WEF Report To: John Wunderlich mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> Cc: Thomas Hardjono mailto:hardjono@mit.edu>, mailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org> John, This list provides some valuable insight. The only thing I would change is the Item 3: Minimal Trust. My correction is nitpicky, but I would change "mistrust between entities: to "mistrust among entities." Often the two parties transacting trust each other. The trust breakdown is further up or down the transaction chain. "Among" captures this more accurately than "between." Jeff --------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@gmail.commailto:stollman.j@gmail.com +1 202.683.8699tel:%2B1%20202.683.8699 Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:27 AM, John Wunderlich mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> wrote: Here's the page that leapt out at me - characteristics of high potential use cases John Wunderlich, Sent frum a mobile device, Pleez 4give speling erurz "...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM -0400, "Thomas Hardjono" mailto:hardjono@mit.edu> wrote: This might help us in some of our use cases:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future_of_financial_infrastructure.pdf/... mailing listDG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc -- @commonaccord -- @commonaccord _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc