From: Alan Bostick <abostick@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:56:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Robert Hettinga <rod@wired.com
Subject: Re: Ecash naysayers
In-Reply-To: <v030078baaef41ed98faf@[139.167.130.248]>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9701040958.A10057-0100000@netcom18>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote:

> 
> --- begin forwarded text
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:02:52 -0500
> From: Roderick Simpson <rod@wired.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv@lists.psi.com>
> Subject: Ecash naysayers
> 
> Anyone heard a convincing naysayer of electronic cash? Who were they?
> 
> Best,
> Rod

The propblem with that question is that as phrased it stacks the deck
in favor of electronic cash.   What is "convincing"?  Find someone with a 
cogent critique of an electronic payments scheme or scheme, and I can 
guarantee that I can find someone, very likely on the WIRED editorial
staff, who won't be "convinced" by it.  What is a "naysayer"?  Someone
who presents a detailed critical technical analysis of a payments
scheme?  Someone who thinks that electronic payments represent the
Number of the Beast and are a sign of the coming Apocalypse?  Lastly,
what is "electronic cash"?  Chaumian anonymous digital cash?  Transmission
of credit card data?

The question is so poorly phrased as to be almost impossible to 
intelligently answer "yes".  Somewhere in it there is buried a real
question with a real answer.  Maybe Roderick Simpson will tell us
what it is.

PS:  I'm *not* a electronic cash naysayer.

Alan Bostick               | To achieve harmony in bad taste is the height
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | of elegance.
news:alt.grelb             |      Jean Genet
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick