At 01:43 AM 4/11/2002 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Pat Farrell wrote: >> Banks exchange bits thru the ACH networks based on >> a belief that their exchange is valid. > >No, they exchange bits based on a very expensive and complicated protocol >that has a variety of safe guards built into it.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I don't see it that way. And I think the difference is important. My work at CyberCash, where we did the exchanges over ACH and Vital and other networks shows that the protocols were not actually very expensive or strongly complicated. Baroque, yes, overly complex to imply security by obscurity, yes. and to serve as a barrier to entry to keep out the unwashed and untrusted, of course yes. CyberCash was allowed to plug in and use the networks not because of some cryptographic wizardry. Rather it was because the founder (Bill Melton) and several of the VPs had years of experience working with the banks. The trust was with the people, not with the bits. Pat Pat Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pfarrell.com
