1994-12-04 - Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta

Header Data

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3580a4c9d7c695bd0c6b5d9ae6433151d6def4572761f11edf3aa4990c801e4b
Message ID: <199412041555.HAA18642@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <199412040223.UAA00225@omaha.omaha.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-04 14:56:46 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 06:56:46 PST

Raw message

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 06:56:46 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta
In-Reply-To: <199412040223.UAA00225@omaha.omaha.com>
Message-ID: <199412041555.HAA18642@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: Alex Strasheim <alex@omaha.com>

   Unless Digicash has significant problems with banks or governments that I 
   don't know about (always a possibility), 

I have a simple rule of publicity here.  If there were a bank who had
already agreed to back ecash, would it not already have been
announced?  Since no announcement of the sort has been forthcoming, I
conclude that the probability that such a backer exists right now is
low.

Eric

Thread

• Return to December 1994

• Return to “Alex Strasheim <alex@omaha.com>”
• Return to “eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)”
• Return to “jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)”

• Return to “mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)”

• Unknown thread root
  • 1994-12-04 (Sat, 3 Dec 94 18:23:47 PST) - Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta - Alex Strasheim <alex@omaha.com>
    • 1994-12-04 (Sun, 4 Dec 94 06:56:46 PST) - Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta - eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
      • 1994-12-04 (Sun, 4 Dec 94 14:47:11 PST) - Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta - mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)
    • 1994-12-04 (Sun, 4 Dec 94 15:56:09 PST) - Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta - jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)