17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:17 p.m.
"The proliferation of desktop publishing has brought a new growth industry, the counterfeiting of virtually undetectable fraudulent checks, and banks and law enforcement officials say the cost to the economy could reach $1 billion this year.
* * *
The American Banking Association says [this] is the No. 1 crime problem facing banks.
This bring to mind the following question: Is there anything inherent in NON-anonymous digital cash schemes that make them more vulnerable to fraud, bribery or inside jobs? (I assume the schemes account for double spending and "counterfeiting" (however that applies to digicash).) Can a case be made that anonymous digicash is less risky (to a bank) than NON-anonymous digicash? Jim_Miller@suite.com