On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 12:32:53PM -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote: | Most of the protocols I'm finding for digital cash don't have much | in the way of dynamic range. Generally, there is a range of values | that they are designed for (rarely more than a factor of a thousand | or so from smallest to largest) and smaller payments become | impossible and larger payments become impractical. | | The problem is particularly severe for offline protocols, where you | can't get the bank online to make change or issue arbitrary-valued | coins. | | Does anyone know any happy exceptions to this rule, where payments | ranging from a millionth of a token up through several million | tokens could all be practical? (ie, dynamic range of the twelfth | or higher order?) | | Anyway, the "practical in arbitrary amounts" assumption is pretty | fundamental to useful money. We achieve it through bank drafts, | checks, transfer orders, etc. But these instruments are not as | clear how to do in a digital world where anonymity is preserved. "Teller can not make change for bills over $20." "Visa/MC minimum charge: $15" "$30 fee for all wire transfers" So, I don't agree with you that we have a payment system that works for arbitrary amounts. Silly laws aside, paying for a multi-million dollar purchase with cash is irksomely difficult, because multiple thousands of dollar bills are bulky. (I'm assuming that forgery is an important deterrent to having million dollar bills. I know I wouldn't want to accept one.) | In particular, I haven't found low-level details of how the "Mojo" | tokens in use by the new MojoNation stuff work. Are they just an | implementation of a well-documented protocol, or did they do something | new? I think that the Mojo guys are using un-blinded Chaumian-style cash. (See Doug Barnes' work on 'identity-agnostic money') Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume