From: plmoses@unix.cc.emory.edu (Paul L. Moses)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 19:25:41 PDT
To: hnash@mason1.gmu.edu
Subject: Re:  Digital Coin Claim
Message-ID: <9308260224.AA10068@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The idea of Digital Gold, here, now seems to include a Chain of Title dimension.
The idea that successive owners need to "record" the transfer from the previous
owner just completely *baffles* me.  A bearer instrument is payable to WHOEVER IS
HOLDING IT.  There are no title searches done on coins used in everyday commerce.
What "hnash" proposes is probably do-able, but currency does not operate this way.
On the other  hand, this is exactly what you do with Real Property.  

I think that creating a chain of title for digicoins would defeat the whole purpose
of the exercise.  Creating a history of ownership is done in order to increase
accountability, not privacy.  And such a history is necessary only to clarify 
disputes over ownership, liens, defects....things which are simply not problems 
with currency and bearer instruments.

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.  A safeguard MAY be introduced (such as a PIN) for public policy and 
convenience (ie people will not be scared of armed robbery), but it is a secondary
measure.  

The digicoin is by definition (and purpose) SELF-AUTHENTICATING.  Any computer magic
here will only be the electronic equivalent of the red and blue fibers in the dollar
bill paper, the seals, the complex designs and colors of other currencies, etc.
Otherwise you don't have money.

- Paul