From: hnash@mason1.gmu.edu
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 21:12:47 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Digital Gold, a bearer instrument?
Message-ID: <9308260411.AA08724@mason1.gmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Paul Moses writes:
>A bearer instrument is payable to WHOEVER IS HOLDING IT.  
>There are no title searches done on coins used in everyday 
>commerce. ...
>
>The question is, what is the end to which this chain of title 
>is being put?  To verify that the holder is a "valid" holder?  
>THIS IS IRRELEVANT.  He who holds, owns.  

These are fine questions.  Thanks for asking them.

The purpose I have in mind for the chain of titles is as a way 
of establishing ownership of something which consists *wholey of 
information*.  It is the closest approximation I can imagine to 
a bearer instrument for bearers who can have no physical 
contact.  

Please notice that the chain of titles is between *aliases* 
which do not reveal the identities of the people trading the 
coins.  Only the people engaged in particular transactions can 
associate particular people with particular digital coins.  Who 
owns digital coin #1?  (It might be me, but it has already been 
transfered to a new alias once.)

The chain of titles I have proposed does not increase 
accountability.  The public cannot determine where the money is 
being spent, they can only determine the aliases which 
anonymously identify the latest owners.  This is the bear 
minimum information that could make a peice of information 
valuable to the members of a community.  

    Yours Truly, ][adon Nash