December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

e$ seigniorage (and is this the cost of untracability?)
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Gleick wrote: > Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > >James Gleick writes: > > > >> Seigniorage is actually the Government's interest income on all the > >> currency in circulation. > > > >Seignorage is neither of these things. It is the difference between > >the cost of producing a currency token (like a quarter or a dollar > >bill) and the face value of the token. In essense, its the profit > >margin on printing or minting money. > > You're giving a definition straight from a dictionary--an old one. > Welcome to the modern world. I think you're both right - Seignorage is the interest on the difference between the cost of producing the token and the face value of the token from the time the token is issued till the time it is redeemed. In the case of most government issued currencies though, the tokens can never be redeemed, so the total interest will be equal to the difference between the cost of manufacture and the face value. It is interesting to note that casinos could earn seignorage on their chips in circulation, and issuers of book/record/gift tokens will certainly earn seignorage on their tokens in circulation, and since these different types of token money reduce the amount of government currency in circulation, these earnings will be at the expense of the treasury. > This is a very real issue. To the extent that electronic money replaces > currency (reduces the amount in circulation), it will cost the Treasury > seigniorage--and the government is acutely aware of this. Sure, and this is equally true of cheques and credit cards replacing government currency. As to whether the government is concerned, that is subject to debate. If so, why all the government attempts at reducing cash transactions? > Whether the beneficiaries are consumers, banks, or other issuers of digital > cash will depend on the system. For e-cheque systems, the beneficiaries will be the consumers, in that the money which was previously in their wallets will now be earning interest in a bank account (assuming of course that the bank passes this benefit onto the customer). In the case of ecash (from DigiCash), however, the withdrawal of ecash from an account is done some time previous to it being spent and deposited, therefore the ecash is "in circulation". In this situation, the ecash issuer will earn seignorage on all the circulating ecash. Two questions arise: - What will be the typical time between the withdrawal of ecash and it being deposited? - Does the untraceability of ecash (of all types) rely on a time delay between withdrawal and deposit (I guess it does), and if so, is the interest that the consumer inevitably loses (and the ecash issuer gains) the price the consumer must pay for untracability of transactions? Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

2 1

Someone's screwing around with anon.penet.fi
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's another one of them unsolicited messages from anon.penet.fi. I have a feeling lots of people on the Cypherpunks list are going to be getting these... My first post to the list was only about two days ago, and someone's already messing around. :( > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 16:42:14 +0300 > From: System Daemon <daemon(a)anon.penet.fi> > To: steve(a)edmweb.com > Subject: Anonymous code name allocated. > > You have sent a message using the anon.penet.fi anonymous forwarding service. > You have been allocated the code name an577024. > You can be reached anonymously using the address > an577024(a)anon.penet.fi. > > If you want to use a nickname, please send a message to > nick(a)anon.penet.fi, with a Subject: field containing your nickname. > > For instructions, send a message to help(a)anon.penet.fi. > >

2 1

Seignorage
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I'm cc:ing quibblepunks(a)toad.com and dictionarypunks(a)toad.com because of their obvious and inordinate interest, so to speak, in such matters.) >From the "MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics," 4th Edition, 1992: "seignorage. Historically, and as applied to money, this was a levy on metals brought to the mint for coining, to recover the cost of minting and provide a revenue to the ruler who claimed it as a prerogative. In recent monetary literature the term has been revived and applied to the net revenue derived by any money-issuing body, e.g. a note-issuing authority. It is applied more especially to a country whose currency is held by foreigners for trading or reserve purposes. In this case the seignorage amounts to the return on the extra assets, real or financial, which the country is enabled to acquire because of the external holdings of its currency, less the interest paid on the assets in which the foreigners invest their holdings, and less any extra administrative costs arising from the international role of its money." So it would seem that seignorage certainly can be used as a term for the interest the note-issuer for digital cash or any similar non-interest-bearing notes (banknotes, traveller's checks, e-cash in many forms, etc.). And the connection with the "float" is clear. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:19 PM 4/6/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >I might add that the Cayman Islands are full of trust companies with >provisions which forbid the disclosure of data to a client who is >coerced. A law on the books refuses to recognize "consent" orders made >under judicial compulsion. This would give the appearance of total >unavailability of evidence and suggest the futility of contempt >charges. Yet courts have still, and with no small measure of success, >imposed sanctions on witnesses so protected. It is one thing to believe that you might be able to change a human's mind by threatening another human via jail. (It reminds me of many bad movies.) It is quite a different level of hubris to think that a similar action could overcome mathematical probability. However, I am unable to predict the actions of anyone who believes that the Supreme Court is the top law-giver of the Universe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Unicorn of Color
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 AM 4/6/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Also, I am hesitant to call you "Black Unicorn," as applying the adjective >"black" to a person is illegal in some jurisdictions, and "Unicorn of >Color" does not ring true. (But I grew up calling blacks "colored people," >and gladly switched to the more noble-sounding "black" in the 1960s, and >now I almost vomit everytime I hear some radfem lesbian claim "All wimmin >are people of color!!!!" Yeah, colored people. My, how the worm has >turned....) But Tim, we are ALL colored people. Even the albinos among us (since white is a mixture of all colors). Even the darkest among us reflect some light which has color. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:58 AM 4/6/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >[on the Burns bill] >At 04:55 PM 4/3/96 -0500, Dave Banisar wrote: >>The draft bill which currently exists only takes the export controls on >>crpyto. The provisions on key escrow, criminal penalities and other problems >>are not in there and Burns staff have no intention of letting them in. The >>actual bill will be introduced in about 2 weeks. >>-dave > >That sounds okay as far as it goes, but I can see a potential problem. Your >wording above is unclear, but if the Burns bill totally eliminates export >controls that's great. However, we've frequently heard talk of "compromises" >like the Leahy bill which seem to relate exportable encryption to that which >is already available overseas. There have been suspicions around there that >this is intended to keep the American producers out of the market as long as >possible, which is still a problem. I don't think that's acceptable. I have no objection to the salami approach in this case. The way the Burns proposal has been described, it seems all together better than the current situation. We can fight the next battle after people realize that the four horseman are well and truly loose, and that the world hasn't ended. When the Burns proposal has been written up into a bill and introduced, I expect I will be writing my congresscritters asking them to support it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 9:58 AM 4/6/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>[on the Burns bill] >>That sounds okay as far as it goes, but I can see a potential problem. Your >>wording above is unclear, but if the Burns bill totally eliminates export >>controls that's great. However, we've frequently heard talk of "compromises" >>like the Leahy bill which seem to relate exportable encryption to that which >>is already available overseas. There have been suspicions around there that >>this is intended to keep the American producers out of the market as long as >>possible, which is still a problem. I don't think that's acceptable. > >I have no objection to the salami approach in this case. The way the Burns >proposal has been described, it seems all together better than the current >situation. We can fight the next battle after people realize that the four >horseman are well and truly loose, and that the world hasn't ended. When >the Burns proposal has been written up into a bill and introduced, I expect >I will be writing my congresscritters asking them to support it Myself also, I suppose. That's why I'm so concerned that it not contain any component that could be easily be re-written more to our liking. The big attraction of the Burns bill, from a strategic standpoint, is that (by the elimination of export controls, assuming it does it) it removes the one major "must do" task onto which could be loaded other "features" that we can't stand, as the Leahy bill tried to do. Once export controls are eliminated on crypto, it should become impossible to get enough support to pass a bill even mentioning key escrow, let alone mandating it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Someone's screwing around with anon.penet.fi
by walter＠cithe302.cithep.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <cypherpunks.Pine.BSF.3.91.960406114609.5026B-100000(a)kirk.edmweb.com> Steve Reid <steve(a)edmweb.com> writes: > Here's another one of them unsolicited messages from anon.penet.fi. I also got one of these right after I posted to cypherpunks. I normally just lurk, and the address that was used is the machine I read and post news on(we have a gateway to the mailing list). So I am pretty sure it is related to my posting to cypherpunks. I have written to the administrators at anon.penet.fi asking about this and informing them. I'll pass on any relevant info they send me. -Chris walter(a)cithe501.cithep.caltech.edu

2 1

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:26 PM 4/5/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Jail term for contempt of court has certain resemblances to trial by >ordeal: if after some period of time of ordeal one has not talked, the >ordeal is over. Also, such a penalty will be pretty rare. One doesn't stop driving because one might be killed in a car accident. The number of people who will be jailed annually for contempt for "failure to decrypt" will always be small and a rapidly declining percentage of total world transactions will lead to such jailing (as transaction numbers double and redouble as more of the world's people enter the Market and the Net). Coercion is a dull tool because people have an incentive to avoid it. Reward is a sharp tool because people seek it out. One of the reasons markets beat governments. DCF "Well, say what you will but Right Wing Mad Bombers kill more people than Left Wing Mad Bombers."

1 0

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12:45 PM 04/6/96 -0500, Stan Bernstein <sbernst(a)panix.com> wrote: > > >On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >[snip] >> ... <snip> ... > > One wonders >whether "download" or "retrieve" could be applied to netsurfing on the >World Wide Web, which procedure "caches" web information in the >end-viewer's hard drive often for several days or even months depending >on configuration of browser software. Makes me wonder if browser companies/authors couldn't be dragged into any such conflicts. If Person A inadvertently stumbles across Pedophiles 'R' Us on the net, and quickly moves on, I have yet to see a browser that lets him/her say "quick - delete that last cacheing operation", thus *making* him/her 'guilty' of criminal possession. Legal opinions? Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMWY9GcVrTvyYOzAZAQH8eQP8DxckYYyMg10XcQdH67G22hIsvuREGDOI AgN/aSJXDddwg0PslLqA3MVxCOB4POLLMx5EAO0aQ5yGVIBNdFNoG/9fQPi7DHMj rulR9PNClQG5krJ6jRDGT1KvE29xUu3inZLcPZF47N11+N5WWJ1YBUqdnlGJNrCb YXifso2HZjo= =EBit -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

1 0