From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 17:19:11 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  IMP (was Re: ecash-info (fwd))
Message-ID: <199405310020.RAA01160@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga)
> >>        http://digicash.support.nl
> This, like CommerceNet(tm), seems to be pretty much under construction.
> The store windows look nice, however...

I agree with this, which is why I don't understand why you said:

> 1.) Chaum's e-cash coupled with WWW/Mosaic is a de facto internet
> mercantile protocol.

You're jumping the gun here a little, aren't you?  There is no evidence
yet that Chaum's current proposals are going to catch on.  The CommerceNet
idea seemed to have more backing judging from the press releases.  And it
did not appear to support anonymous transactions.

> 2.) It seems to me that that e-cash, contrary to the status quo's thinking,
> is *critical* to internet commerce. An anonymous cash market is most
> unrestricted and efficient market there is, because privacy/security (more
> than trust, I think) is the capstone of any serious transaction mechanism.

I don't follow this argument.  You are suggesting that an anonymous cash
market would be more efficient than one based on checks and credit cards?
It would have lower transaction costs, so things would be available for lower
prices?  Why is this?  The hypothetical discussions we've had here on "if I
ran an anonymous bank" often talked about service charges.

Your use of the term "capstone" is unclear in this context.  Are you suggesting
that retaining privacy is more important for most people than trusting a
seller in most transactions?  Most people would rather buy from FlyByNight
Corp if they could stay anonymous than from Sears using their credit card?
I don't think so.  For some people, the kind who won't use checks today and
get by with cash and money orders, this might be true.  But I don't see
it as being the rule.

> The imp-interest people seemed to be afraid of e-cash because the
> Chaum-patent hairball reminded them too much of the RSA/PGP fight, and
> probably because they didn't want to be associated with any wild-eyed
> crypto-anarchists(tm).  (As a dyed-in-the-wool yellow-dog congenital
> up-by-your-bootstraps crypto-fascist <gasp> republican, I haven't the
> slightest idea what they're talking about. . .)

It seemed to me that the IMP list discussions degenerated into flame wars
between Detweiler and cypherpunks.  Those in the middle, which included
most subscribers, were shocked and disgusted by Detweiler's crude flaming
and this made everyone uncomfortable about bringing up the topic of anon-
ymity and cash.  With Detweiler on the list it was impossible to have a
serious discussion of the matter.

> 3.) Since a big pile of the discussion on this group lately has been about
> our collective concerns about an RSA-approved version of PGP, I think there
> is a real parallel here in e-cash.  Not that some enterprising cypherpunk
> should immediately code up "e-cash for the masses"; that would be way cool
> but probably not within the second-mortgages of the people here. However,
> some effort should be made to get Chaum et. al. to see to logic of
> distributing *both* the "cash-register" and the "wallet" of this e-cash
> system to anyone who wants it. It seems that, like Mr. Bill (Gates), his
> real market is the people who make e-cash ("banks", "currency exchanges",
> "mints"), not the people who use it.

Chaum is trying to make money off his ideas.  In doing so, he is being
guided by the invisible hand of the market to try to find those niches where
his technologies can be most profitable.  Maybe going after the bankers is
the wrong idea, but it is understandably tempting to prefer trying to get
millions of dollars from a few people than a few dollars from millions of
people.  It does sound, though, like he is trying to branch out now and
spread his technology around.  Perhaps he will follow the lead of RSA and
make a "ChaumREF" free implementation of his cash technology.  The Commerce-
Net model had RSA supplying free client software while charging the vendors
licensing fees, I believe.  Chaum may be planning a similar approach.

It would be nice to see more details about what Chaum has in mind.  My
WWW access is very weak.  Could someone summarize what is available
at the page listed above?

Hal