Wouldn't the ability to have the bank prove that the coins were 'cashed' make this all null and void? The only way this would work would be if Charlie is willing to completely forego cashing in the coins, *ever*. Should he cash them in later, Ed would seem to have grounds for suspicion/complain.
In the scenario I suggested, Charlie never gets coins from anyone. He just (falsely) claims that he was supposed to have received some from Alice.
My test copy of the Ecash software logs what coins were spent - wouldn't something like that constitute evidence that any claim was made? Failing that, wouldn't Ed be able to tell the bank 'these coins were misplaced/lost/damaged. please cancel them', and then re-issue any payment due? *If* Alice really paid Ed, then he would have evidence of such, whether Charlie's claim is valid or not. With the cash in hand, Ed should reasonably be able to re-issue them, just as one could put a stop-payment on a check and re-issue. Or am I completely missing something here? (always a possibility, I suppose :-) Dave This is a test (3 UUE lines) of the unconstitutional ITAR - 1/713th of the PGP executable. See below for getting YOUR chunk! ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [015/713] ------------------- M=$<(&L`#*IPP",(G6(,,S,`P](<2RWU96XCW86/JBYV8A\D8@X'HB_9H#&\X MX'PCUB.,13B"X8`R?^J-:UB.M_`U\>[#)BS&5$0C,Y#^1CS>1`\T1QTXX6!3 M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1148