I curious how much slower the chip (EMV, or or 'old-style) is than the magetic swipe? Here in EU there is not difference, the transaction is done in couple of seconds max and most of this is the time spent waiting for authorization response. The entry mode chip/magtripe/contactless doesn't make that much difference.
It definitely feels like it takes forever and completely disrupts the motion I'm in by making me wait around to do nothing. I've never timed it but the 10 extra seconds I read [1] sounds pretty accurate.
Because it's a different experience in the US versus EU. I'm a US expat and my experience at registers abroad is way different with my PIN+Chip card -most of the time I use contactless, but for the few shops that have held-off upgrading their terminal, it's still pretty fast. I barely have enough time to put groceries in a bag before I feel my phone notify me of the transaction completion and the terminal tells me to remove my card.
It baffles me that the US is still struggling to get chip-and-pin working properly, when most of Europe has been using chip-and-pin for over a decade and is now transitioning to contactless. America seems weirdly bad at this sort of co-ordination problem.
Because the U.S. does not have chip-and-pin, we have chip-and-sign. The main reason is that federal law in the U.S. limits the credit-card holder fraud liability to $50, and does so with language around signatures. Those same laws also set out fraud penalties for people fraudulently signing.
Since all of the laws revolve around signing, we don't get PINs.
There is a second wrinkle to this for Europe: because there is no equivalent to these laws, in many cases Europeans are the ones completely on the hook for fraudulent transactions as the correct PIN number is seen as evidence the consumer having leaked it. So in cases of fraud the U.S. chip-and-signiture winds up protecting the consumer much more.
AFAIK ALMOST NO US-based banks issue chip+pin credit cards. Only chip+signature. Debit cards are indeed chip+pin, but in USA you'd have to be careless to ever use a debit card anywhere but an ATM.
This. I'd NEVER give thieves access to my bank account, that's what credit cards are for. Chip transactions take ~5 seconds, it just feels slow because with a swipe you can put the card away in your wallet while the processing is happening.
Chip+PIN doesn't really exist for US CCs. I've setup PINs on a few cards but they only work overseas where the terminal refuses signature.
In the UK at least, chip takes about 2 - 3 seconds. 4 or 5 would feel long. Contactless is usually instantaneous; I assume there's more caching involved somewhere.
I haven't seen anyone or myself swiped in about 10 years, and that was only because the chip reader wasn't working at the time.
Contactless transactions for smaller amounts are often offline approved without requesting approval from the bank/network. This takes off the 2-3 seconds of the transaction time.
Apparently, there's an optimization that needs to get done with the retailer's bank. Big retailers have this completed so their chip transactions are very fast. Smaller ones either don't or need to go through a middle-man servicer which adds time and god knows if the middle man has completed this optimization. Subway restaurants, which are individually franchised, are like this. They just have one of those cheap chip terminals and the transactions can take 30+ seconds. Meanwhile at Walgreens it only takes a few seconds.
A lot of this has to do with Quick Chip, which forgoes writing the host authorizer ID to the credit card's chip thus simplifying and shortening the transaction. QC rollouts happen at whatever pace retailers want, so you'll see some shops using QC and others that don't.
The default colour scheme on Putty is not very good in my opinion. know I can change it manually but it would be nice if the default for new connections was better.
The idea was to have a legitimate reason to publish the code.
He found a representation of the code that was also the tenth largest prime found using ECPP meaning he could publish the finding and claim he wasn't publishing the code. However, anyone who wanted the code could easily find it by looking up the prime
