On 18 Jan 2013 at 13:21, roger wrote:
> I'm a little leery of Letters of Credit. I can see how it would be
> easy to use but it would still take time to verify that the person
> with the letter of credit is the person to whom it belongs to, the
> lag time to confirm the letter will still take weeks.
No, that's the whole *point* of Letters of Credit. You *don't* send
back to confirm them. You use *built-in* (and one use)
authentications.
An example using current tech would be to use a PGP signature on the
LOC to verify that it was from the bank it claims to be from and that
it was unaltered.
*Any* bank with the *public* key of the issuing bank can verify that
the LOC was "signed" with the *private* key of the issuing bank.
Verifying ownership can be handled similarly. If the bearer can't
"plug in" the right *private* key, the LOC won't verify as being to
him.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
> I'm a little leery of Letters of Credit. I can see how it would be
> easy to use but it would still take time to verify that the person
> with the letter of credit is the person to whom it belongs to, the
> lag time to confirm the letter will still take weeks.
No, that's the whole *point* of Letters of Credit. You *don't* send
back to confirm them. You use *built-in* (and one use)
authentications.
An example using current tech would be to use a PGP signature on the
LOC to verify that it was from the bank it claims to be from and that
it was unaltered.
*Any* bank with the *public* key of the issuing bank can verify that
the LOC was "signed" with the *private* key of the issuing bank.
Verifying ownership can be handled similarly. If the bearer can't
"plug in" the right *private* key, the LOC won't verify as being to
him.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com