Re: First Virtual?

[Andrew Lowenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>]

Mark Terka writes:
>  Ok, so what are our options, given that this company seems to think
>  of security in terms of a plastic padlock. From corresponding posts
>  on the list, the only other alternative, Digicash, doesn't seem to
>  be too responsive to anyone's participation right now.

It seems to me that DigiCash mistakenly 'jumped the gun' and announced before  
they were truly ready to test.  This is such a common ocurrance in the  
computer industry that I'm suprised people are making noise over it.   
However, it indicates their reluctance to ship something before it's ready,  
which is good considering the technical and political challenges of the task  
they are undertaking.

How can you really compare the proposed DigiCash systems versus FirstVirtual?  
 One is a 'toy' system for moving credit card numbers around without actually  
broadcasting them in the clear, the other is a cryptographically secure  
digital cash type system.  It's not suprising that FirstVirtual is ready  
sooner than DigiCash.  However, assuming each system was ready and working as  
advertised, which would you trust for your financial transactions?  With the  
possibility of millions and billions of dollars of commerce ocurring on the  
net in the near future, which do you think most people will want to use?

While FirstVirtual may have it's place in the world of online payment  
systems, it is IMHO no replacement for a real digital cash system.  The fact  
that most of the people who have even heard of these new payment systems are  
unaware of the not so subtle differences should alarm most cypherpunks.   
Digital cash isn't going to happen overnight (although most of us would like  
it to), and the last thing we want is for systems like FirstVirtual to become  
the de facto standard for online payment...


andrew