A few days ago I asked:
Can a case be made that anonymous digicash is less risky (to a bank) than NON-anonymous digicash?
There were no takers. Therefore, I'll ask different questions: Would a Chaum-style anonymous digital cash service be more profitable to a bank than a NON-anonymous digital cash service? Are the costs involved in offering and supporting anonymous digital cash more, or less, than the costs associated with NON-anonymous digital cash? In other words, why might a bank chose to offer/support anonymous digital cash over NON-anonymous digital cash? If a "bank-centric" case for anonymous digital case over NON-anonymous digital cash can't be made, then there's little chance we'll see anonymous digital cash any time soon. Jim_Miller@suite.com