[118037] in Cypherpunks
RE: Will this replace banking?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Fri Sep 17 23:41:10 1999
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:21:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199909180321.FAA10628@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
> b. WebFunds is a multi-wallet system. It's up to you
> to add some sort of blinding formula if you are keen
> enough. It is (supposed to be) open source, although
> we haven't got the anon source out yet, and accounts
> only go to people I know coz the machine needs to be
> secure. It's early days, and nobody has announced
> anything yet.
>
> c. The difference between blinding and a non-blinding
> system is, at an optimistic maximum, 10% of the protocol,
> and 1% of the code. Do I have to amplify this point?
It's not going to be easy and may not even be practical to add blinding to
a protocol which is not designed for it from the beginning. Besides, it
would require changes to both server and client. The server (distinct
from the mint) runs at systemics.com. Are you going to make that
open source? Run new code supplied by outsiders on your own server?
Let others add blinding into your system? These technical possibilities
raise significant business, liability and legal issues. Commitment to
open source can go only so far in this context.
> d. People with money at risk don't want blinding, they
> want a system that works. DigiGold works, with some
> flaws, and some features. That gets 9 marks, against
> blinding's one mark. Blinding's out of the game until
> someone can start shipping coins.
Au contraire, the only significant advantage DigiGold offers over E-Gold
is privacy. Blinding needs to be part of this package to interest the
privacy market.
> e. The e-gold guys have said they want to do blinding.
> They've always said it. But since they've got involved,
> they've discovered some of the non-techie aspects that
> make blinding - er - more difficult. They've adjusted
> their strategy accordingly.
Earlier you claimed that blinding could be added so easily, changing
only 1% of the code, and that outsiders would be welcome to add what
would apparently amount to a minor tweak. Now you say that there are
significant obstacles in adding blinding to the system. Which is it?
> f. You did do your "research" in one area, but failed to
> pick up the beginner's clue. That article was written by
> someone who was non technical. Nothing in there represents
> anything that is claimed by the people who write the
> software. I.e., no "level of financial privacy" has been
> promised by either technology, so your post is deviod of
> relevance.
So, to make this clear, you are saying that neither E-Gold nor DigiGold
promises any degree of financial privacy? You might want to read the
DigiGold contract at:
http://www.digigold.net/ricardo/contracts/DigiGold.asc.txt:
> conditions_privacy = *
> {
> Accounts normally enjoy strong privacy.
The phrase "strong privacy" might easily be misinterpreted to suggest
that DigiGold promises some "level of financial privacy", which you deny
is being promised.
You might also want to review E-Gold's online FAQ at
http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/Faq.htm#ecash:
> Would e-gold be better if it was an implementation of electronic cash?
>
> There are advantages and disadvantages to both account-based money
> and electronic cash. Our preliminary plan in 1995 was to introduce
> electronic cash 100% backed by gold. We quickly discovered that
> fundamentally vital functions - exchange (to/from other forms of
> money), issuance, redemption - were not addressed by electronic
> cash per se. e-gold was born as a suite of interface utilities to
> facilitate eventual deployment of gold-backed (specifically e-gold
> backed) electronic cash (we trademarked the name DigiGold for
> this purpose).
This could also mislead people into thinking that DigiGold is a form of
electronic cash.
Fundamentally, the problem is this: you guys have the superficial
appearance of a privacy-protecting, anonymous payment system. It's no
wonder that the WorldNetDaily reporter was confused. But the meat isn't
there. Maybe your system can evolve into one eventually; if so, great,
but it doesn't sound like you are making much of a commitment to it.
You seem to think that "sorta" private transactions are good enough.
Well, this exchange will hopefully straighten you out about that,
at least.
