Authentication is not the end-game. Exchanging money for goods or services is the end-game.
No, it isn't. Exchanging arbitrary products and services is the purpose for which money was invented and don't ever forget that.
Well, first of all it is not necessary that there is even a thing called a "payment". I almost challenge anybody to inform me, what is a "payment" anyway? other than a trivially simple entry on a database table at a bank, with immensely expensive staffs and security wrapped around it, gargoyles on the bulding etc.
In theory all our interparty obligations could be netted. http://www.ledgerism.net/arapcloud.htm They are just information, which is static in nature, and comes at the *end* of a decision by two parties to execute some economic transfer.
If you're into dot net you are aware of the business process layers of BPEL4WS, as well as ebXML and others. The models for specification of business process are the beginnings of what may eventually allow us to trade without even quantifying things in money at all. The nesting of transaction models within particular collaborations, with some normative ways of handling exceptions is maturing a lot faster than humans are able to understand and use it, outside of large enterprises. I admit that.
The reason I mention those specifications of transaction flows and products etc. is a) they're fundamentally more useful in the process of creating transactions. b) payment or exchanging money comes at the end, and it's impossible to automate the earlier stages if you start at the end. and c) software developers are automating the earliest stages here, and they are going to end up owning all the data, so get used to it. For example sooner or later shoppers might receive electronoic receipts that allows them to reorder the same stuff. or shop around for lower prices. etc. When we have those sorts of platforms, and execution of purchases the payment/settlement migrates out of the bank. It is almost, nothing except another barcode product.
I wrote a little thing about this.... again, this is a thought experiment intended to prove the point that we do NOT need banks or "exchanging money" which you asserted to be the highest stage of evolution! grrr! :-) http://www.ledgerism.net/nonquantified.htm
warm regards
TOdd
Note that I am assuming that banks (holders of intangible assets) are required in a market economy.
Calling one of the principals the relying party misses the point.
What we need is a merchant, a merchant's bank, a seller and a seller's bank. The other stuff is just word play.
..tom
