From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:50:28 PST
To: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb+limbo@nsb.fv.com>
Subject: Re: More FUD from First Virtual
Message-ID: <m0tO6o4-00091AC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:51 AM 12/8/95 -0500, you wrote:
>Excerpts from mail.limbo: 7-Dec-95 More FUD from First Virtual Douglas
>Barnes@communiti (1157*)
>
>I *am* skeptical about the extent to which anonymous cash *can* succeed,

What can stop it?  What should stop it?


>but in point of fact I'd like to help.  I think society will be better
>off if one of the payment options is truly anonymous.  I think that
>level of privacy will inevitably carry a high surcharge, however, for
>reasons that I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.

Well, maybe I haven't been following those reasons, but I see little or no
reason privacy should "inevitably carry a high surcharge."  If the relevant
encryptions had to be carried out with a pencil and a piece of paper, that
claim would make sense, but remember, we've got MICROPROCESSORS on our side!

I agree, I suppose, that there are definitely entities (read: governments)
which would WANT to prevent the use of anonymous cash, but I view them more
of an obstacle to be removed than a permanent bar.