The trick to getting rid of intermediaries is not to avoid intermediary agents but to own the agent as an individual. This is self-sovereign technology where any of the first three parties of the transaction (pastor, payee, intermediary) can be self-sovereign tech. The major trick to doing this at scale is to avoid federations, including IDPs, as much as possible. It's especially important to avoid asssuming there are federations when designing the standards that support self-sovereign technology.

The alternative to trust based on federations is trust based on distributed ledger technology as in bliockchains. This is what we're demonstrating with HIE of One using UMA as the authorization standard and self-sovereign blockchain ID as the authentication standard.    Instead of a payment, our demo shows writing a prescription. See it at IIW.

Adrian



On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:15 AM James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin, thanks.

If I've understood your concern, it is that hosting of the data stores should be independent of financial institutions.  My thought is that the data model should work for both (all) situations - the data store can be hosted by a financial institution or by someone else, including by individuals themselves.  This, I believe, is how email works - there is a common standard and you can set up your own server for yourself or a group, or have someone else do it.  The email interchange standards and open source software keeps this cheap and portable.  You can take your email history when you change hosts, so hosts have little leverage.

The critical thing seems to be the data model and interchange protocols.

Jim 



On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Kevin Cox <kevin@welcomer.me> wrote:
This is a good start but there are better ways of handling money.  

We do not need AISP (Account Information Service Provider) or PISP (Payment Initiation Service Provider) any more than we need Identity Providers.  What we need are free apps we are given to look after the information in our accounts, and for apps to help us to spend our money as we see fit.  We do not need Identity Providers as we are quite capable of acting on our own behalf and purchasing the tools that enable us to do it electronically. The apps are free and we use the transaction charges made on transfer of money to pay for the app development.  These transfer charges will be less than the current transfer charges.

The cost of operating electronic systems will drop when we get rid of intermediaries in electronic space that stand between people and between people and collaborative human entities like companies and governments. We replace the intermediaries with open source apps.

Money is the good one to start with because the way we organise our money system is ridiculously expensive. The savings made with money can fund the development of other ways of working together in collaborative and co-operative ways.

Money is a promise to repay.  A promise costs nothing to make.  It costs a lot when the promise is broken and not fulfilled.  A promise is zero cost so why do we charge for the use of zero cost money tokens that represent the promise?  We should not pay to use money tokens. We should pay if we break a promise.  Changing to zero cost money tokens will reduce the cost of operating an economy by at least 50% and perhaps more.  We have become so used to thinking that money tokens have a value that we forget that cash tokens have no value. The value is the promise that the government will accept the money for us to pay our taxes.  The idea that money tokens have to have a value leads to the planned inflation of money tokens, nonsense cost-benefit studies that rarely predict outcomes, expensive cumbersome systems like collateralized debt and bitcoin - and these are only the least harmful.

We can be truly autonomous in the electronic world but only if we have electronic ways of working together in small and large collaborative groups that can handle the situations when some of us break our promises.  

Here is a proposal we are working on to save the community of 400,000 people in which I live $70M per year for no cost to the community.  An emergent property of the system will be a safe secure electronic identity for our Co-op members that only they can access.  (PS. It is the reason I am not at IIW)

Kevin


On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:44 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed.  PSD2 and GDPR both require P2P data model.  Mentioned here in conversation with Eve. https://commonaccord.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/prose-objects-for-enterprise/.

A P2P, smart contract and prose object data model for finance could look something like:

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
https://www.evry.com/en/news/articles/psd2-the-directive-that-will-change-banking-as-we-know-it/



--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma




--
@commonaccord

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma




--
0413961090



--
@commonaccord
--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/