cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1993-10-19 - Re: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)

Header Data

From: “Robert J. Woodhead” <trebor@foretune.co.jp>
To: peb@PROCASE.COM (Paul Baclace)
Message Hash: cee8a747e81d55f21132c6e0ebd2e037f33c0c01c6d058c3d0e3a40e0ec26abe
Message ID: <9310190112.AA17160@dink.foretune.co.jp>
Reply To: <9310182300.AA03078@banff.procase.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-19 01:17:23 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:17:23 PDT

Raw message

From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor@foretune.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:17:23 PDT
To: peb@PROCASE.COM (Paul Baclace)
Subject: Re: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
In-Reply-To: <9310182300.AA03078@banff.procase.com>
Message-ID: <9310190112.AA17160@dink.foretune.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Paul writes:

>Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised
>since, as you note, even the Swiss have be>en pressured into opening up 
>their records of anonymous bank accounts.

I believe you are confusing cash with deposits.  Cash (either paper or
digital) can be passed untraceably from palm to palm (or palmtop to
palmtop, if you will).  Deposits, on the other hand, require a method
for the bank and the depositor to authenticate each other.  In the
past, anonymous authentication was rife with problems, but cryptography
might solve these problems.

However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the
justification for anonymous bank accounts?

Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them,
I recognise the need to do so.

Thread