From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 08:58:16 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: First Virtual?
In-Reply-To: <9412022231.AA06560@ch1d157nwk>
Message-ID: <199412031756.JAA17333@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   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.

Digicash and First Virtual and Net Bank are all payment systems.  The
primary benefit is moving money.  _All_ other benefits are secondary,
including privacy and security.

As far as actually being a payment system, it's Digicash's trial which
is the toy system.  It can't move money.  First Virtual, no matter
what its flaws, can.  Not particularly securely, not quickly, but
money will move.  Just because FV is a bad payments system doesn't
mean it's not a payments system.

There's no question at all that Digicash's technical means are
superior to First Virtual's.  But technical means alone do not make a
business and Digicash at this moment doesn't have a business but
rather only a possible opportunity for one.

First Virtual has all sorts of problems.  Its security sucks.  It will
have a higher fraud rate than other credit card uses.  Merchants won't
particularly like it because of this and the delay in payments.  Users
won't like it because the interface sucks.  It's not fully fungible
money, because you can't use it for arbitrary commmerce.  Fine.
Because of all these concerns, FV won't be suitable for many purposes,
but it will be for some.

What FV's commercial advantage will be is that they'll have a
pre-existing user base on hand when the improved system comes.  This
is a not insignificant advantage, since it's much easier to deal with
someone you've already been dealing with than with somebody new.

Eric