From: rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 95 11:53:03 PST
To: hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Subject: Re: There is another NetCash
Message-ID: <v01510102ab593f760d33@[199.0.65.105]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:09 AM 2/4/95, Hal wrote:

>Some payment system is probably better than none, but I hate to see
>the name "cash" expropriated by these non-cash systems.

Indeed. That was the point of the URL to Mr. Solinsky's excellent
introduction to the subject.

It is easy to see that the original NetCash isn't a digital cash system,
with its clearing of a single-use serial number transmitted unencrypted in
the clear, and with its "bank" settling the transaction through the telco
900-number system. Not having looked yet, I bet the "other" NetCash is
probably not Chaumian-equivalent digital cash either, or we'd have heard
more about it. It would be a pretty major accomplishment, especially if it
doesn't violate Chaum's patents.

As Eric has said here recently, we have to remember the difference between
transaction clearing (which First Virtual, for example, does well, at least
as a prima facie system) and transaction settlement (which FV does on the
back of the Visa/MC network), which is what a true cash-settlement system
would do in one stroke.

Someday, and not now, I would like to take up the cudgel and jumpstart the
old offline/online cash debate. I like offline cash because it doesn't
require a bank intervention at every transaction, double-spending cash and
"inside-job" private key theft notwithstanding...

Ah, well.

Someday.

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga  (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone
Shipwright Development Corporation     who eats too little and sees Heaven and
44 Farquhar Street                       someone who drinks too much and sees
Boston, MA 02331 USA                       snakes." -- Bertrand Russell
(617) 323-7923