From: Jeremey Barrett <jeremey@bluemoney.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:22:00 +0800
To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Subject: Re: SET
In-Reply-To: <2325.879351741@tygar.trust.cs.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <199711121918.LAA20209@einstein.bluemoney.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Robert Hettinga writes:
 > 
 > Personally, I'm becoming convinced that SET is practically Ptolmaic in it's
 > complexity. You can get money from point A to point B, but you have to go
 > through a lot of epicycles to get there.

Agreed, SET is overengineered hogwash.

 > 
 > Unfortunately, I think that no MIS manager will get fired for using SET, and
 > it'll take a serious demonstration of a security breach before people will
 > listen to anything else. At least until someone demonstrates a transaction
 > protocol which is, say 3 orders of magnitude cheaper...

Perhaps... OTOH, SET is SO bad that it will be impossible to deploy,
probably forcing everyone away from it anyway.

As far as a better protocol, it's already designed, implemented, and
running quite nicely in our software. :-)

Regards,
Jeremey.
- -- 
Jeremey Barrett                                BlueMoney Software Corp.
Crypto, Ecash, Commerce Systems               http://www.bluemoney.com/
PGP key fingerprint =  3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80  DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBNGoA5C/fy+vkqMxNAQGjGAQA2fnFE85Mr2QdYuZoHwhOgioTzp833POY
EaOWT3z2eNhSBz8EkoVI6m/X/og6oqc5fHZnG7ys8jjVTcQX2rPiaIE26qDgisPx
2EiV7IW+Rul4hi9+dzQKfloXbKakANRtrT8CNYWGRmsstKQd4hXVsVmdrV4USRe5
b55K7Di7pqk=
=IeCU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----