[25085] in Cypherpunks
Re: for-pay remailers and FV
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sandy Sandfort)
Mon Jan 9 16:20:09 1995
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 13:09:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
To: Eric Hughes <eric@remailer.net>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <199501070231.SAA20999@largo.remailer.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
> . . . a remailer consortium would do best to issue a local banknote
> usable only by themselves and have customers settle with the
> consortium issuer, rather than any member of the consortium itself.
> If the consortium issuer were to use blind sigs, the consortium
> members wouldn't be able to ascertain who paid.
>
> The mechanism for settlement could be credit cards directly, mailed in
> checks, even FV. The preferences of the consortium members for issues
> of timeliness of settlement, reversibility, loss sharing, etc. would
> decide the actual choice of settlement mechanism.
> . . .
Gee, this sounds awfully familiar. Maybe Eric will have more
luck in getting you remailer folks to listen. I hardly got so
much as a peep when I suggested that a remailers' guild create
or authorize one or more digital stamp issuers.
Damn, I hate being so far ahead of my time.
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
