Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:45 PM, John Leslie wrote:
"Banks" would be compensated by debiting a customer account more
than the amount of ePostage issued and/or crediting a customer
account less than the amount redeemed. Or, perhaps there would be a
per-transaction fee (in the thousandths of cents, presumably). I
see no role for IETF in saying which model a "bank" uses.
Just to throw some arithmetic onto this.
Very welcome!
A large consumer ISP might send 50 million emails a day externally.
That sounds low to me.
Assuming that there isn't "one bank to rule them all" it seems
reasonable to assume that any given "bank" wouldn't handle much more
than that.
I'd agree that depending on more than 100 million per day in
drafting a business plan would be risky.
A thousandth of a cent banking charge would be about $500 / day or
$182,500 / year.
I did say "thousandths" (plural). Will you allow me two?
And IMHO, there are two transactions per email. We've passed
$500,000 per year, anyway.
That's not a plausible budget for running any organization with the
level of reliability and backing that would be needed,
What level of reliability _is_ needed?
I figure five-nines on losing track of a token is marketable.
Tokens outstanding needn't exceed, say, a billion. Guessing one cent
tokens, we've got perhaps $10 million "outstanding", but in fact
only settlements ever need to change hands.
not by at least one order of magnitude.
That's "close enough" -- I was a physics major. ;^)
So "thousandths of cents" doesn't seem realistic language when
discussing a per-transaction fee.
If so, the market will support a higher fee. (I don't mind!)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg