From: Joe Thomas <jthomas@access.digex.net>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Message Hash: 9fcba27b9c002f92bbe8147fcfe7aa97d8c64a4c5b4752403fb073f65941ef09
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9405030856.A14127-0100000@access1.digex.net>
Reply To: <199405030650.AA25513@access3.digex.net>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-03 12:42:04 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 May 94 05:42:04 PDT
From: Joe Thomas <jthomas@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 3 May 94 05:42:04 PDT
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Digital Cash
In-Reply-To: <199405030650.AA25513@access3.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9405030856.A14127-0100000@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 3 May 1994, Black Unicorn wrote:
> So has anyone tried to solve the problem of double spending and
> the online requirement of digital cash?
Sure. Stay jacked-in full time.
Seriously, communications costs are dropping so fast, I'm not sure why
you'd put much effort into designing a bulletproof offline system. Even
with today's technology, a shopkeeper could just have a $17.50/mo. Netcom
account and run his Magic Money client whenever someone wanted to pay
with bits. Certainly no more expensive than a credit card Verifone.
But this question comes up often enough that I'm afraid I'm missing
something. Why would offline systems be more useful?
Joe
Return to May 1994
Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@snark.imsi.com>”