[118088] in Cypherpunks
Re: ecash means anonymous & untraceable (Re: Will this replace
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James M. Ray)
Sun Sep 19 15:54:59 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210107b40ae8e95fbe@[207.36.25.141]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 15:25:58 -0400
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: "James M. Ray" <jray@e-gold.com>
Cc: dbs@philodox.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: "James M. Ray" <jray@e-gold.com>
(I'm not on cypherpunks anymore, please cc me on any
replies you want me to see, but as the marketroid I feel I
should say a few words here. My opinions below are my
own, check & verify everything you see, YMMV, etc.)
Let me say at the outset of this that any inaccuracy, error,
imprecision, mistake, hype, etc. is completely my failing and
fault if it appeared in the article at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_cwolfe/19990916_xccwo_will_this_.shtml
Claire Wolfe is a great, accurate writer, and my mistakes
& misunderstandings, if any, should not reflect on her or her
good work.
I think she did a fine job, anyway (at least it wasn't a Beenz-
worshipping, selective-misquote-festival!) Claire created an
account, saw an actual spend, checked her URLs, and wrote
coherently, which is a BIG step over just about anyone else.
(Like I said before, I'm now spoiled.)
Anyway, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
...
>I wouldn't say ecash has to use blinding, but I would argue it would
>be a misuse of the word "ecash", if something which was revocable
>were
>dubbed ecash.
I think I agree, but to keep comparisons in realspace let's
remember the new look of US $20s, $50s, $100s, etc. can
only mean eventual revocation* of the "old kind" of what
people also call cash. Both kinds circulating equally can't
last forever (it'll likely end right after an election, IMO).
>
>With that definition it is not technically possible to implement
>electronic cash at all without tamper resistant hardware, because
>reliance on a mint, or double spend database means your "cash" can
>become worthless over night if someone (say a government) decides to
>switch off a computer (the one holding the double spending database).
>
Indeed, I've heard that a properly-placed electro-magnetic
pulse could switch off all non-hardened computers between
Anguilla, Bermuda, Maine, Kansas City, and Miami (or so)
permanently. A nasty thought!
>This is because the value isn't held by the bearer, it is secret
>split
>between the mint (in it's double spend database) and the bearer (in
>his token), rather than being held solely by the bearer as the token.
>
>Real ecash would be something which is really bearer, the value
>should
>lie solely in the instrument. (Though clearly it's market value may
>alter, the value should not be revocable by the removal of an entry
>in
>a data base or book entry system.)
>
>However the closest you can get in software is blind ecash -- yes the
>server being shutdown could revoke the value of your cash -- but the
>server can't discriminate and single out a single user because of the
>blinding -- it has to revoke all value at once. And this is probably
>as good as it gets for ecash.
>
(Sometimes I'm very glad to be "mouth rather than math" &
this is one of those times!) Anyway, to keep getting back to
paper, all the paper currency I've seen has serial numbers
on it, and some I've heard of gets specially marked by law-
enforcement goons, in various efforts against unauthorized
smuggling, theft, etc. and thus paper cash might be hard to
call truly blind in the ideal-cypherpunks-sense, at least as I
understand it.
>Several companies have been misusing the term cash (present company
>excluded of course -- systemics, webfunds, e-gold, digigold are not
>calling their systems cash.)
>
Yes, though we do say "world wide money," and to tell the
truth (until this week) I haven't even thought much about the
difference between money and cash.
>I'm thinking of things like netcash -- more like net checks, etc., or
>the typical credit card amortizing approach dubbed as "cash".
>
>I can only presume the predilection to call these traceable book
>entry
>payment systems "cash" comes from marketroids who want to borrow
>cash's good PR -- "cash is king", cash is for anonymous,
>instantaneous, irrevocable use.
>...
Yes, though I can honestly say that no e-gold spends have
ever been revoked. I hope that the intelligence agencies
learn to like us (despite that little jab in the WND story, they
should). I think that government has little or nothing to fear
(and much to gain) from honestly-administered systems.
(That opinion will disappoint some of you, I'm sure.)
For the reasons I'm a bit miffed at "mainstream" journalists
(which Claire Wolfe isn't, she's a _columnist_!) see paragraph
one of http://www.ait2000.com/egold.htm - while considering
_vaporware_ getting coverage in the W$J, etc. while e-gold
languishes in this silent darkness of media-ignorance.
Reasons for the non-coverage are (IMO) both the Digicrash-
burn Claire mentioned, as well as an almost-religious aversion
to gold-as-money explained (my irony-meter is pegged now)
at: http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan041998.html (by
Alan Greenspan in his early days, and note that we AREN'T
"the gold standard"). Anyway, once I can afford to, I'll feed
a bunch of journalists about $10,000 worth of shrimp, good
beer, and salmon (guaranteed to get nice coverage then!)
but I still long for e-gold to be noticed before the party.
Because of the almost-religious aversion I won't be surprised
(though I WILL still be annoyed) when news coverage of the
next _impotent_ anti-spam law fails to mention my Flying Rat
Project (found at http://www.FlyingRat.org <sigh>) again...
Regardless of any mistakes or confusion I may have caused
in Claire's piece, DigiGold & e-gold both deserve much wider
coverage. (I hope I'm not sounding "whiny" in my frustration,
but it's hard to conceal my annoyance & attempt to sound
positive -- I'll try.)
One of many great things about e-gold is that you need not
think about gold at all to use it! You can think in dollars or a
number of other currencies, and poor people can create an
account for FREE (just put nothing in it!). Lots of journalists'
readers would have lots of uses for us if only they knew we
existed. Hell, wider use of e-gold helps poor Africans (just as
Tony Blair's fire-sale & other market manipulations hurt poor
Africans, whether or not the situation in the gold market ever
gets covered that way, IMO). Anyway, there are all sorts of
other reasons to write about both systems, but I'll stop now.
JMR
*For a variety of reasons, some better than others, but it IS
funny how that little trick is so much easier to do with paper
than it is with, say, precious metal. ;^)
Regards, James M. Ray
"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all
others." -- Frederic Bastiat, "Economic Harmonies" p. 82
Create a FREE account: http://jray.QuickGold.net
Opinions are my own, unless you paid me for them.
Regards, James M. Ray <jray@digigold.net> or <jray@e-gold.com>
"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others."
-- Frederic Bastiat, "Economic Harmonies" p. 82
Create a FREE account: http://jray.QuickGold.net
http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/pgpkey.htm has my DH PGPkey.
Opinions are my own, unless you paid me for them.
