1993-10-16 - IRS LEARNING . . .

Header Data

From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
To: 72114.1712@CompuServe.COM
Message Hash: cb82f917d5ab2281df842d3b18ca989ef3c41bb20172dbceeedb529860f9e5c1
Message ID: <9310160338.AA06519@servo>
Reply To: <931016022542_72114.1712_FHF82-1@CompuServe.COM>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-16 03:40:13 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 20:40:13 PDT

Raw message

From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 20:40:13 PDT
To: 72114.1712@CompuServe.COM
Subject: IRS LEARNING . . .
In-Reply-To: <931016022542_72114.1712_FHF82-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <9310160338.AA06519@servo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>there are better ways to accomplish the same result.  My favorite
>*fun* solution would be to buy $80,000 in travellers cheques and
>then *burn* them.  I leave the rest of the transaction as an
>exercise for the student.

Well, yes, I suppose you could then leave the country, find an Amex
office and file a claim for the missing $80,000 of travelers checks,
but wouldn't this generate precisely the kind of paper trail you're
trying to avoid?

Anyway, back to cryptography, I do suspect that the government will
eventually point to digital cash as justification for controlling all
of cryptography. Or they will refuse to back it up in court as legal
tender, thus helping undermine it. I know there's this concept called
"reputation" that's supposed to take the place of the government
enforcing contracts, but I have a hard time understanding just how it
will work for very large transactions between individuals (like buying
a house or even a used car).