From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 20:36:58 +0800
To: bryce@digicash.com
Subject: Re: Why does the state still stand:
Message-ID: <199605171736.KAA19396@newmail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:09 AM 5/16/96 +0200, bryce@digicash.com wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
> is alleged to have written:
>> 
>> But what I'm looking for is full payee/payor anonymity.  (three guesses as 
>> to why...)   Can you do this?  If not, why not?
>
>
>Let me get this straight.  You are asking for full payee/payor
>anonymity so that you can institute a program of anonymous 
>assassination contracts, right?

It's not just for me.  I seem to recall a comment around here (Tim May, 
perhaps?) who said that when he first read of digital cash in the late 
1980's, the feature of payee anonymity was present, and that he was 
surprised later to see early implementations not containing this.

Deal with the devil?

Any "complete" digital cash implementation has to provide for payee anonymity.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com