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

Header Data

From: mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)
To: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Message Hash: d39c7dc1aaa422472c7cf68acd81dae113dfc6baff450da4527e13ee150b9de3
Message ID: <199412042247.QAA07327@pentagon.io.com>
Reply To: <199412041555.HAA18642@largo.remailer.net>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-04 22:47:11 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 14:47:11 PST

Raw message

From: mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 14:47:11 PST
To: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: Brands excluded from digicash beta
In-Reply-To: <199412041555.HAA18642@largo.remailer.net>
Message-ID: <199412042247.QAA07327@pentagon.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
> 
>    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.

Unless said bank wanted to set up the necessary infrastructure and possibly
work in back ends to home-banking software and other pieces that make such
a system usable for "real people."  In all likelyhood your conclusion is
most likely erroneous.

jim




Thread