Bob,
I think we have been having this conversation over and over for at least three if not
four years now...and neither of us has given up.
I still claim that your insistance on offline clearing is a mistake that limits your
options and the possibilities for ecommerce.
I have looked at some of the approaches you have been flogging in addition to
concentrating on upgrading the technology supporting the old models in our current
infrastructure.
I have been doing some work on "blinded, but not totally anonymous"
communications/transactions. Some of the instantiations are online and others are
offline. Each approach has some merits and one side cannot be ignored because the
other is cooler.
I still find merit in online book entry identity based systems as well as offline book
entry identity based systems. I have found more applications for some offline and
some less "true names" oriented approaches. There cannot be one winner, but there
will be more losers than winners.
I found Adam's points to be interesting but remain convinced that for serious (and not
illegal or illicit) commercial applications the models I have been hawking will be
adopted. I believe that the overhead saved in the "anonymous haven" type approaches
does not counterbalance the additional costs when viewed from the perspective of the
typical person or organization. That is not to say that those selling alternative
visions will not find profitable niches to create and occupy. I have seen some of
Adam's work and have been impressed...and I am still impressed by your tenacity and
arguments Bob, but still no sale.
If you would just recognize that each side has its points I will agree to stand down
for a while.
...kawika...
just my views...don't attribute them to anyone else
>>> Robert Hettinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/15/99 08:03PM >>>
At 6:41 PM -0500 on 2/15/99, Wei Dai wrote:
> Thanks, Adam, for this great explanation. It certainly cleared up my
> confusion.
Speak for yourself? :-).
> I think it is slightly unfortunate
Your use of the word "unfortunate" is unfortunate in and of itself. :-).
> that RAH chose to identify "bearer"
> with instant settlement, since it is conceivable that an electronic
> payment system operating out of a jurisdiction with no illegal contracts
> could offer instant settlement even when everything is based on book-entry
> accounts.
Not true. I claim that the closer you get to a cheap, instantaneous,
electronic, book-entry settled transaction over an insecure public
internetwork, the closer you have to frontload the authorization, the
"signature" of the intermediary in the transaction. In fact, that's the
most important part of the transaction, the reputation of the transaction's
guarantor. You end up with a cryptographic object which whose only
information component is the value of the asset and the guarantee of a
financial intermediary. A digital bearer certificate, in other words.
C'mon guys. Why do you think that DigiCash calls it's cryptographic objects
"coins"? Why do you think that MicroMint calls itself a "mint"? Why do you
think that Millicent calls it's "tokens" "scrip"? It's kind of hard to talk
the talk unless you're walking the walk, most of the time. At least in
private enterprize.
Wake up and smell the coffee, here. We're talking about digital *bearer*
transactions.
> Perhaps we can use the terms "payment system with instant settlement"
> (PSIS) and "payment system with delayed settlement" (PSDS) instead? Then
> we can also distinguish between PSIS with accounts and accountless PSIS,
> and PSIS with anonymity and without, and so on.
A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. If it quacks like a duck, et cetera.
Sheesh.
Cheers,
Robert Hettinga
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with one line of text: "help".
