From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 10:45:23 PDT
To: hfinney@shell.portal.com (Hal)
Subject: Re: In Search of Genuine DigiCash
In-Reply-To: <199408211716.KAA06276@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <199408211745.KAA14305@netcom12.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hal writes
> So for both on-line and off-line ecash there appear to me to be problems
> with the notion that cash has a unique advantage in providing immediate
> clearing of transactions.

Obviously anonymous E Cash can be duplicated with 
alarming ease.  Physical cash is also becoming easier 
to duplicate.

Is identity based cash so bad?

The existing grey capitalist system works primarily on foriegn 
check accounts.  If Joe writes a check in dollars on his Swiss
bank account, sends it by snail mail in a sealed envelope to
Peter, who places it in his BNZ account under his Hong Kong
identity, they are both fairly secure.  Although the transaction
is fully traceable, it is unlikely to be traced without the 
consent of one of the participants.

Suppose each E Cash certificate grows by adding identifying material
in each transaction that makes it possible, with the consent of 
each participant in the chain, to trace it backwards.  Or suppose
each participant maintains a database that makes such tracing possible
and proveable.

Then double spending on amounts of moderate size would
be very rare, so rare we would not have to worry in normal
transactions.  In big transactions you have similar problems
with physical cash - there is always the worry that the guards
may defect, or whatever.   That is why big transactions are
almost always identity based..

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com