From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 18:55:45 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Forgery, bills, and the Four Horsemen  (Articles and Comment)
Message-ID: <199509060153.VAA14379@book.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <199509052310.QAA10027@jobe.shell.portal.com>,
hfinney@shell.portal.com (Hal) wrote:

>This is not completely correct; there is a degree of anonymity in
>DigiCash's ecash.  That is anonymity of how a person spends his money.
>Neither the bank nor the payor is in a position to learn who or where a
>particular piece of ecash comes from (assuming that anonymous
>communication means are used).

So it is harder to compile dosiers on people. Big deal. The recipient can
still determine who gets the goods paied for by the "anonymous" ecash by
conventional means (hint: shipping address), so the payee anonymity is of
little value as far as protecting the privacy of the payer (most likely
the recipient of the goods) is concerened.

Ecash of course is of *no* value for the various assasination markets,
drug dealing, money laundring, etc that routinely get mentioned in the
same paragraph as Ecash. The reason is the *full traceability* of the
payee that has been deliberately built into the current version of Ecash.
A "feature" that you may rest assured will be part of all future versions
backed by anyone with even marginal reputation in the financial markets.

- -- 
- -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
   PGP encrypted mail preferred.
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMEz/CyoZzwIn1bdtAQErdwGA3TrIYF5+O1EOQ+qdCyZRo8ePJnxmAAAl
EeES8xBtWDBFwqUXTFRbj1hqLv9kwQ6K
=7w8Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----