[25092] in Cypherpunks
Re: for-pay remailers and FV
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Mon Jan 9 18:43:32 1995
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 18:26:09 EST
To: db@Tadpole.COM (Doug Barnes), sandfort@crl.com (Sandy Sandfort)
From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
At 03:53 PM 1/9/95, Doug Barnes wrote:
> ... Also, there is no reason on earth to take FV for payment under
>such a scheme, if one wishes to preserve anonymity, and not have
>to deal with the fraud/reversal factors. (The stamp issuer
>would not know which blind-signed stamps were issued to the
>turkey who reversed all his credit card transactions two months
>after buying them -- see various threads on this vis-a-vis
>using FV to buy blinded digital cash and why it won't work too
>well.)
> ... I don't see any reason to get FV involved, unless one were so lame
>as to be unable to get signed up directly with the credit card
>companies as a merchant -- a process of appropriate complexity
>to indicate the posession of at least one (1) clue, which is prob.
>desirable in someone who's going to be handling remailer finances
MC/Visa require the reversibility of transactions as a condition of their
merchant agreements. It's not something peculiar to FV. In fact, under
certain conditions it is mandated by federal law. Escort services have a
similar problem as far as non-returnability goes, but I don't know how they
finesse their way around it.
--Paul J. Ste. Marie
pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com
