[118060] in Cypherpunks
RE: Will this replace banking?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Sat Sep 18 16:53:00 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210171b409981275a2@[204.167.101.56]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:27:21 -0400
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:41:06 -0400 (AST)
From: Ian Grigg <iang@systemics.com>
To: dbs@philodox.com, rah@shipwright.com
Subject: RE: Will this replace banking?
Reply-To: iang@systemics.com
Sender: <dbs@philodox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dbs-on@philodox.com>
> > 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.
All of which is true in general, I'm making certain working
assumptions. If it doesn't work for you then let us know
how you get on with your blinding project.
[irrelevant probing snipped]
> Au contraire, the only significant advantage DigiGold offers over E-Gold
> is privacy.
That's an opinion, which you're entitled to hold.
> Blinding needs to be part of this package to interest the
> privacy market.
The market you seem to be seeing here is the blinding market,
not what I would call the privacy market. This would be something
we disagree about, no doubt.
> > 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?
Read the comments. Technical obstacles are not a minor tweak,
but are certainly doable, and are not at the level of strategic
concern. The non-technical obstacles are substantial.
> So, to make this clear, you are saying that neither E-Gold nor DigiGold
> promises any degree of financial privacy?
No, neither the non-existant blinding systems nor WebFunds
as currently implemented is in much of a position to make
much of a claim about financial privacy. It's simply too
early for the latter, and the former should be obvious.
(It's up to the e-gold guys to make a claim about e-gold.)
> 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.
A good point. The technology is in early stages, and is
not particularly robust as yet. I wouldn't say that the
technology is secure yet, so the above statement might
be too strong when considered just at the tech level.
There are some other aspects which make the above statement
not necessarily too strong, but you won't be able to see the
whole system, until it is fielded by the DigiGold team.
> 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.
Maybe. Did we define electronic cash yet? I suppose you're
going to say that it includes blinding, so that's another point
of distinction between our viewpoints. Not that I wrote the
above, but it seems accurate and useful.
> 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.
If the meat, as you describe it, is blinding, then no, there
is no blinding there. Did the reporter mention that?
> Maybe your system can evolve into one eventually; if so, great,
As an aside, it might seem to some that you are trying to
shame someone into adding blinding. You might get more
credence if you simply offer to write it!
> but it doesn't sound like you are making much of a commitment to it.
It is not the policy of e-gold (as far as I know), systemics,
nor any other long term and credible player in this area to
make any public committment to something that isn't fielded.
> You seem to think that "sorta" private transactions are good enough.
> Well, this exchange will hopefully straighten you out about that,
> at least.
No, not really. All you are saying is "blinding or bust."
I'm not part of the philosophy, but I'm willing to assist
any one who is willing to put their money where their mouth is.
But, I am more and more seeing you as mouth not money. I
also think you are being particularly naive about these posts,
given that it is fairly obvious who you are, and if you wish
to attempt to damage other peoples ventures, then that's the
reputation that'll stick.
iang
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
