From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 19:59:21 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The End of the Ecash Trial?
In-Reply-To: <v02120d04ac6112134b53@[199.0.65.105]>
Message-ID: <9508240258.AA22751@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>The problem with being a bank is the price of the bank software, which is
>where David Chaum and Co. want make their money.  Thus, the last price I
>got (offhand) from David on the phone a year ago was $250k + 10% of net
>profits.  Given the cost of hardware, people, lawyers, and if you actually
>back the certificates with dollars in a bank of deposit (not being what we
>want do to here, admittedly) bankers, and more lawyers.  Could add up to a
>mulitmillion dollar proposition.

So Dave expects a Bank to pay him $250,000 + 10% so they can't find anything 
out about their customers spending habits.

Dosen't sound as if its all that tempting a proposition for them, they are 
expected to both create the market and pay the monopolist to participate in it. 

If Chaum had given his system away, got everyone using it he might have a 
Netscape type situation. As it is I can't see a great deal of incentive for the 
people he expects money from to give it him.

I don't think this is a going proposition at the moment. 

It might work for Motorway service tolls and such. I can easilly see a method of 
getting a political party to buy into such a scheme. It would be kind of ironic 
given the political motivations of most annonymous payment supporters if the 
government turned out to be the only organisation likely to buy the product.

Personally I don't like Motorway service tolls.

Any other people have some ideas about people likely to pay 0.25 M +10% of 
profits? Perhaps it could be used for gambling?


		Phill