1994-05-03 - Re: Digital Cash

Header Data

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

Raw message

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?