From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 95 13:00:40 PST
To: frissell@panix.com
Subject: Re: More FUD from First Virtual
Message-ID: <01HYNC6OW73K8Y4X93@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"frissell@panix.com"  "Duncan Frissell"  8-DEC-1995 16:15:52.58

At 02:52 PM 12/8/95 -0500, Jon Cooper wrote:

>   The US government can stop it.  It is irrelevant what *should* stop 
>it, but it's extremely useful to note that the US government's political 
>climate of paranoia and FUD in general will certainly not allow truly 
>anonymous cash systems inside of our country in the forseeable future.

But who's going to ask?  If an anonymous payment system springs up outside
the US, we can use it as a store of value if nothing else or for shopping
overseas. 
Domestically, we can convert non-anonymous payment systems into
semi-anonymous ones.  What counts is difficulty of transaction and market
demand not legal structure.  Thus, about five minutes after the "temporary
VISA card" travelers check substitutes are issued, I can start selling them
for (discounted) cash to all comers.  Likewise Ecash laundry servers letting
anonymous people use non-anonymous Ecash.

It remains to be seen how much customers value anonymity.  There should be a
niche market in any case.
----------------------
	I would also add that what one is doing when trading digital cash is
bartering for information. While the government has been successful in placing
limits on point-based bartering systems such as recordkeeping and taxes, the
lack of central books will make it quite hard to do so for digital cash. Trying
to outlaw barter arrangements, when what is being bartered is an apparantly
random string of numbers, is quite simply not going to work.
	-Allen