From: Duncan Frissell <76630.3577@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 05:56:02 PDT
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Digital Cash$$$$
Message-ID: <930617125212_76630.3577_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



(J. Michael Diehl)

>>>Then DC is actually backed by "legal" currency?  Then, what's to keep 
>>>someone from opening a digital bank, and takeing the money and runing?

Nothing.  Just like the First National City Bank of New York or Bank Leu,
Zurich.  You should deal with someone with a rep and perhaps a history.
Obviously the risk of fraud would be greater with a digital cash issuer 
completely unconnected to an existing financial institution. 

>>>OECD?

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  AKA the rich 
countries (plus Turkey).  The 12 EEC Countries (we can all name them, 
can't we? %{) + Canada, US, Japan, AU, NZ, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, 
Finland, Austria, Switzerland, and Turkey.

>>>Obviously, DC can lead to quite a few opportunities for corruption,
>>>taxes for example.  This will hinder (or help, in Washington D.C! ;^])
>>>the spread of DC.Is there any arguements for DC, to offer to counter 
>>>this major drawback?

That's not a bug that's a *feature*.  Those are the main arguements in 
*favor* of DC.  The main argument that DC can use against D.C. is that 
conventional regulatory techniques have been obsoleted by the nets, 
downsizing effects *all* sorts of institutions not just corporations, and 
the denizens of the District had better start figuring out what they will 
do when they are forced to get honest work.    

Duncan Frissell

Laws are local, communication is universal.