From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 18:44:27 PST
To: Eric Hughes <eric@remailer.net>
Subject: Re: for-pay remailers and FV
In-Reply-To: <199501070231.SAA20999@largo.remailer.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9501061816.A25172-0100000@netcom10>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Eric Hughes wrote:
> This whole fracas between blind-sig money and FV money is a symptom of
> the confusion between clearing and settlement.

It is nothing to do with that confusion.

> To wit, a remailer consortium would do best to issue a local banknote
> usable only by themselves and have customers settle with the
> consortium issuer, rather than any member of the consortium itself.
> If the consortium issuer were to use blind sigs, the consortium
> members wouldn't be able to ascertain who paid.

If they could use blind sigs they would not need a consortium.

The customer would just put the postage inside the envelope, and
each for-pay remailer would just peel of an envelope layer,
and use the postage that the user provided for it.

Chaumian money solves the problems we are discussing.

The problem that we are discussing is how to solve them 
without using Chaumian money.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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