-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hey Sidd,
> It becomes more and more > obvious that we need a standard to make multi-currency implementation > easier for developers and consequently less expensive for merchants to > implement receipt of payments from DGC's. My conclusion was: every merchant should be notified of payments in his own currency (as well as GoldGrams). That's what taxes in NL want. Furthermore, if we quote prices in either GG or in our own currency, then a system like GoldGrams (which wants to be a currency site for gold, it seems) can be used to popup a calculation in the currency of the client. "Multi-currency" sounds very general. AFAIK there's only the merchant's and the client's. And there's GG as an agreed-upon middle man. Ehm... after reading on, I understood that you meant a different thing with multi-currency, or is this also in your scope? > I am proposing a consortium (DGC Consortium?) where the operators (and > developers) of gold currencies can work together to help create this > standard. This can be a simple and easy process, and should cost very > little. Haha, that'd be the first simple standard :) I suppose you should setup a mailing list or such... Geoff may be willing to help you here, he's been playing with Majordomo lately. > Examples of simple things that could be addressed very easily: Actually, change is hard to accomplish if you have a userbase... > e-gold uses "mailto:"; in status_url to send e-mail confirmations, > goldmoney uses "email:". I wonder why? Since this is a one-time, manual entry, who cares? But I've also wondered why GoldMoney is non-standard here. (You're getting off-topic... this has nothing to do with currencies.) > This strikes me as being quite bizarre! Why aren't the currency codes as > such: AUD=AUD, GBP=GBP, goldgram=AUG etc? Surely this makes more sense? To me, it does :) > e-gold = EG, GoldMoney = GM, Pecunix = PX, e-bullion = EB etc? A switch for the handling is indeed useful for a generic payment processor. I've got one such beast and splitting the "bank" is the first action in it. It's better to use an existing global identity than to introduce a new one and wish that everybody agrees to it. Otherwise we'd get in trouble as soon as Microsoft starts dealing in gold. The sending email adddress works quite well to determine the claimed origin of an message. > Why should all the form fields be named differently for all the > currencies? I think GoldMoney redesigned and picked better naming. e-gold's naming has the traces of growth from immaturity to maturity. > Perhaps a better solution is "GM_SOME_STANDARD_NAME", > "EG_SOME_STANDARD_NAME" etc. I think you're totally off here. Either the field names are globally the same, or they are different. These ones surely are different. I think you'd prefer an added field, <INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME=GOLDSYSTEM VALUE=GM> which would also avoid having to check a mixture of field names, such as GM_SOME_STANDARD_NAME with EG_ANOTHER_STANDARD_NAME in one form. > Creating the hash could be standardised. Why use ":" as the delimiter in > EG and "?" in GM... etc. The ':' was my invention, but I was there before the '?' of GoldMoney. Hey Geoff, seems we're at war here ;-) There's a bigger issue here. The hashes are of different types. In e-gold they can only be MD5, and that one is rapidly being replaced with SHA1 everywhere. But if e-gold is going to be as quick adding a new hash as they are in adding the Euro currency (due in two months, sametime DEM will cease to exist) there's little hope for improvement there. The best thing would be, of course, to receive public-key encrypted information, so that there's no trouble with hiding the secrets in your browsers, and such. That's a really wicked part of the SCI / OMI deals. It is really hard to hide a secret embedded in a web-server visible file. I mean, really hide it, from the people that know where the weaknesses of your web system lies. If there's only public keys in the merchant system, it's totally safe to store the key, because it's a public key anyway. I've noticed that payee's tend to grab their transaction info and send it as "proof" of their payments... it'd be pretty useful if only that'd be a PGP-signed thingy... > Certainly there are probably MANY more SMALL things that could be done > to make this all much easier for developers, and such a standard would > also benefit the currencies, who would likely see much wider > implementation of their currency. Hmyeah... I must say, after reading the GoldMoney docs, it took me an hour or two to move over to accepting GoldMoney, so it wasn't that much of a deal to me. > would you support an idea like this? I don't think it'll be doable in practice... > I am willing to > set up and sponsor a web site where we can publish and discuss draft > standards etc. A mailing list would suffice. Subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, Rick van Rein DNS.vanrein.org -- Domain names payable in gold. GOLD.vanrein.org -- Info about gold-based e-commerce + gold sale to the Dutch. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE74w1TVVg0GvW60c0RAmLhAJ9MOjs0yXezgMNNcg1Jt5/qE4+vAACfZpY5 K2qI+BqcCz6/h5GJGhBj8kE= =v96I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-tech as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
