From: nsb@nsb.fv.com Wrong. A First Virtual transaction takes place as a single step via mail, FTP, or WWW. *After* the transaction there is an email exchange to confirm the purchase [...] If this email exchange is necessary and not merely advisory, then it's part of the transaction, unless you have a far different notion of transaction than I do. This depends on your definition of anonymity. There are two forms of anonymity: counterparty anonymity and issuer anonymity. FV claims the first but not the second. "Far from anonymous" may be a little confusing, but it's certainly far from completely anonymous. I think this meets most practical standards for anonymity, [...] That depends on your standards, I suppose. It's certainly not sufficient for anonymous mail with digital postage.
and its minimum transaction cost is high enough to rule out its applicability for very small transactions.
Wrong again. We explicitly permit seller-based accumulation, [...] Net clearing of this form requires the creation of an entire billing system for small value which then settles through FV. The very nature of such a net billing system requires linkability of transaction to transaction, or in other words generates identity. So FV is unsuitable for small value anonymous transactions. We expect to make our money on information products, not on the commerce engine. At 29 cents plus 4% per settlement transaction, I find this comment disingenuous in the extreme, even after paying Visa for settlement.
it seems odd to build a unconditional rejection into the payment system, especially for products that can't be returned in any meaningful sense.
Of course it can be done without bundling it into the payment protocol. But, I suspect, it can't be done if you want to piggyback on Visa's settlement system. By "bundling" it into the payment protocol, we have been able to achieve a vast SIMPLIFICATION of the payment protocol. You haven't simplified the protocol, you've simplified your business model. It is not a coincidence that we are the first (and so far, still the only) system that is operational with real money. I question "first". Certainly one of the first. In any case,, it isn't a coincidence that you were able to start up quickly, because you didn't build a settlement system for real value but rather used someone else's. [... earlier in the post ...] (And FYI, we know whereof we speak: we use cryptography heavily internally, and we are extremely aware both of its power and utility AND of the practical difficulties in its use.) [... then later ...] The email confirmation is indeed a bit cumbersome if it gets invoked very often and your mail system isn't FV-smartened. So if you're planning on removing the cumbersomeness of your current protocol with software, why is it that you don't have an option to turn on crypto, whose cumbersomeness can also be mitigated with software? This position seems, well, inconsistent. Eric