-- For a long time the US has been the center of the world monetary system, and the US dollar the base money of which all others are derivatives. The primary way of doing transactions on the internet is by credit card, with the headquarters and computers located in the USA. The secondary way is by paypal, located in the USA. Paypal and credit card requires information that ultimately links to your true name and social security number, and people in those peripheral and backward countries that do not yet have their system of government issued identity well integrated to that of the USA, for example Poland, cannot use Paypal. The US government makes a big profit out of this, effectively gaining an interest free loan on each dollar it prints, and it also leverages it into a source of power. Those it disapproves of are cut off from the mainstream money system. Now if one cuts a few terrorists off from the money system, no problem, but when one cuts off large numbers of terrorists, suspected terrorists, suspected child pornographers, suspected money launderers, suspected tax dodgers, and the entire population of Poland, who is being cut off? The terrorists or the US? Well people, I think the money system has just turned upside down. The money launderers are not being cut off from the US led international monetary system. Instead the US is being cut off from the money launderer led international monetary system. The two most popular no-true-name accounts are e-gold an moneybookers. I googled for web pages containing both the word "egold" and the word "moneybookers". Got lots of hits, seems that lots of quite ordinary people are finding it cheaper or more convenient to mediate international transactions through computers that are not located in the US and whose accounts are not coupled to true names. The great majority of people and money are still going through the US led system, and since people are reluctant to change, that will continue for a long time. But they no longer have to, and for most people in the world, there is no longer a good reason why they should. A no-true-name account is inherently cheaper than a true-name account, because of the high cost of managing true names. The early adopters seem to be largely people who are sensitive to the cost of setting up accounts. However, a no-true-name account still faces the problem that it is reversible, dragging the issuer into the arbitration business, which most issuers are not competent to do. All users have to pay a transaction cost reflecting arbitration costs, whether they want their transactions to be arbitrable or not. The solution to that cost, is chaumian money. The fact that no-true-name money seems to be beating true-name money leads me hope that economics can beat inertia and regulation. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ForgDjc+maghCgZHGp2ILgpQ1EJ4weji+guNpA6d 4V0E4la174KcnGEHgMo0C/zJlMQlOcMwzRGJ+HQ5W