On 12 Jul 2001, at 15:41, Morlock Elloi wrote:
The basic point here is that:
a) most "public" (including me and the few that I talked with) will not "trust" money that is pure math, without actual *people* (who can be pulped if something goes wrong) behind it.
You say that now, but what if the day comes when digital currency schemes have been in successful operation for years, and there are goods or services you desire that can be had far cheaper (or only) if you use digital currency? YOU won't dive in with the stuff, but assuming it can be made to work at all, there may be enough brave/foolhardy people to bootstrap the system to the point where it has been demonstrated "safe". BTW, the usual term for what you call "pupability" is "accountability". Usually one speaks of people being "held accountable" rather than "pulped". I'm not criticizing your choice of terminology, but I think communication is facilitated if people stick tostandard terminology rather than making up their own. Also, bank officers caught defrauding their customers in the real world are more likely to be sent to minimum security prison rather than bludgeoned to death.
b) The competition (government) will pulp the pulpable mint.
Possibly. Or there's another possibility, that maybe the government officials who have "pulping" authority will become clients of digital cash systems themselves.
So, n-way blind e-cash will never happen. It may be a nice thing to bullshit about and to do PhD thesis and patents on and thus attract chicks, but it will never happen.
Seldom say never. BTW, a PhD helps you get chicks? Where? George
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/