From: jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 15:37:25 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: All our eggs in one basket?
Message-ID: <9311202336.AA03499@bilbo.suite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Alan (Gesture Man) Wexelblat writes:

> Today we use paper cash and paper forms.  I go to the bank to
> make a withdrawal, I fill out a paper form requesting
> money.  They take the form, fail to give me cash, claim that
> I have been given cash.  What recourse do I have?  (Several
> is the answer, but the point is that it's not a problem new
> to digicash.)
> 

> Today I order from a supplier.  I send a paper form of
> payment (P.O., check, paper copy of my CC #, etc.).  They
> cash such form and do not send me goods (or claim that they
> did and they were lost in transit).  What recourse do I
> have?  (Again, several.  Again the point is that digicash
> does not seem to be introducing new problems; rather it's
> giving us new forms of old ones.)
> 


I agree these problems are not new to digicash, but if we can design a digicash system  
that eliminates these problems, then we should.

I don't know if it has been designed yet, or even if it's possible, but I would like to see a  
digicash system that does not force the user or the merchant to trust the bank.  The  
merchant and user should be able to use an arbitrator to solve any dispute that may arrise.
(assuming it gets that far)

I don't feel it is good enough to trust in a reputation mechanism to prevent banks (or  
anyone) from cheating.  We shoud try to do better.

Actually, disputes may arrise without any cheating involved.  Hardware and software  
failures may create situations that appear to be attempts to cheat.  (I don't know this as a  
fact.  Just my gut feel.)

The less trust required, the easier it will be for all parties to settle disputes.  (another gut  
feel)


Jim_Miller@suite.com