From: plmoses@unix.cc.emory.edu (Paul L. Moses)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 20:02:17 PDT
To: plmoses@unix.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re:  Digital Coin Claim
Message-ID: <9308260256.AA14390@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Clarification 1) unix munched out on some text.  Para 2:  "such a history is necessary
only to clarify with currency and bearer instruments disputes over
ownership....arg try again now
"to clarify disputes over ownership, liens, and defects - things which are
simply not problems with bearer instruments"

Clarification 2)  Digicoins may differ from ordinary currency in being revocable,
but this is not necessary.  That is, X loses his digicoin.  Y finds it and uses it.
Just like money.  OR:  X loses his digicoin.  Y finds it but cannot use it b/c Y
does not know the PIN.  OR:  X loses his digicoin.  Y could use the digicoin, but
X calls the issuing bank and they cancel the digicoin number.  
	In the last scenario, the one most compatible with the 'chain of title'
or verification-type approach, there is clearly a major privacy problem.

At least this is the way I see it...