Paul Moses writes:
A bearer instrument is payable to WHOEVER IS HOLDING IT. There are no title searches done on coins used in everyday commerce. ...
The question is, what is the end to which this chain of title is being put? To verify that the holder is a "valid" holder? THIS IS IRRELEVANT. He who holds, owns.
These are fine questions. Thanks for asking them. The purpose I have in mind for the chain of titles is as a way of establishing ownership of something which consists *wholey of information*. It is the closest approximation I can imagine to a bearer instrument for bearers who can have no physical contact. Please notice that the chain of titles is between *aliases* which do not reveal the identities of the people trading the coins. Only the people engaged in particular transactions can associate particular people with particular digital coins. Who owns digital coin #1? (It might be me, but it has already been transfered to a new alias once.) The chain of titles I have proposed does not increase accountability. The public cannot determine where the money is being spent, they can only determine the aliases which anonymously identify the latest owners. This is the bear minimum information that could make a peice of information valuable to the members of a community. Yours Truly, ][adon Nash