From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:51:49 +0800
To: Laurent Demailly <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: ecash remailer
In-Reply-To: <9511022349.AA01867@hplyot.obspm.fr>
Message-ID: <9511030011.AA09279@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>No. please get first hand facts. I have 'laundered' more than e$18000, by small 
>amounts of a couple of e$, and *no* bucks were lost(1). I

I did, I got a direct report from a person who is extreemly well known in
the field of computer networks and security. A second person who is well
known in the UNIX and scurity areas reported the same problem.

The fact that you can operate the system correctly does not mean that it
does not have bugs. These people were looking to break the system. 

>but hey... if
>your wallet has an hole, of if you throw away your money, you won't
>whine to the ATM, would you ?

Yes, and I would win. Under regulation E of the Federal Reserve code
my liability is limited to $50. The scenario you describe is analogous
to my cash being stuck in the machine.

This is the essential regulatory problem that e-cash faces. Regardless of the
contract disclaimer it is by no means certain what liability Mark Twain have.
The charges are significantly higher than those for credit cards, I see no
validity in the argument that the small fees mean that a small liability 
should be incurred.


	Phill