On Jul 14, 2005, at 6:23 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I think that by eliminating the need for a merchant to learn
information about your identity I have aimed higher. Given that we're
talking about credit instruments,

Wasn't that a goal of SET?

Some of it was, yah. I don't claim that any of this is original. The
problem with SET was that the protocol was far too complicated to
implement (hell, the spec was nearly too heavy to lift), and it was
proposed well before people even had USB connectors on their
computers, let alone cheap USB card interfaces. I think people threw
out the baby with the bathwater, though. The general idea was correct.

While the SET protocol was complicated, it's failure had nothing to do with that fact or the lack of USB on PCs. You could buy libraries that implemented the protocol and the protocol did not require USB. IMO, the failure had to do with time-to-market factors. In the late 90s, when ecommerce was just at it's infancy and you took the risk of setting up a web store, were you going to wait you could integrate a SET toolkit into you web site and until your customers had SET wallets installed on their PCs before selling a product? Or were you going to sell to anyone who used a web browser that supported SSL? It was very simple economics, even if you had to pay VeriSign $400 for your SSL certificate and pay Visa/MasterCard a higher fee.

Aram Perez

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to