The solution for money laundering is to remove the "money", as defined by the state, from the equation. Crypto removes the content from everyones's eyes except the two parties that communicate. That is what crypto can do. The moment one wants to convert some bits to state-money she is doomed. If you want to rely/convert at any point to the state-money you will become a money launderer/terrorist/whatever. There is simply no way around this. Paper cash is not a solution, since it is observable. Anything observable is not a solution. This is a fundamental problem - not unlike futile attempts to stop copying the content one can hear or see, or to invent foolproof watermarks. Instead, we need a new principle that will not include state-money in any form or shape. Thinking aloud ... this may be silly: Let's start from something that works - secret key message exchange, maybe enhanced with PK key exchange for the carefree. A person, by defintion, trusts itself, so currency known only to the two parties should be reasonably safe. Every pair of traders have their own currency. A disbalance (A owes B but C owes A) is resolved by creating new B-C currency. There is no anonymity, but the network is hardly connected and therefore reasonably safe. The system is hardly new but it was never done in software AFAIK. You never do business with someone whose reputation you can't instrument. But someone can start a business for reputation building. Again, hardly new. This doesn't enable global trade, but frankly I don't care. I don't gain much from it anyway. Going through a series of intermediaries to buy some fine Afghan pot is a small price to pay for getting out of the state's sight. In other words, with small transistors and digsigs there is no need for centralised money at all. No more mainframes, thank you. Big business will suffer, but somehow I don't feel sad. So, tell me, is this silly ?
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of AARG! Anonymous Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 9:40 PM To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Illusional delusions
The solution for money laundering is to remove the "money", as defined by the state, from the equation.
Yes yes, here we go. A cutesy technical argument about why this that or another doesn't fit the strict definition of this that or the other offense. I'm sure the prosecutor, the judge and the jury will be eager to listen.
Crypto removes the content from everyones's eyes except the two parties that communicate. That is what crypto can do. The moment one wants to convert some bits to state-money she is doomed. If you want to rely/convert at any point to the state-money you will become a money launderer/terrorist/whatever. There is simply no way around this. Paper cash is not a solution, since it is observable. Anything observable is not a solution.
Therefore murder, if not witnessed, never happened. If a body falls in the forest...? Please.
This is a fundamental problem - not unlike futile attempts to stop copying the content one can hear or see, or to invent foolproof watermarks.
The fact that party X commits a crime without being witnessed does not eliminate the crime. It merely makes prosecution a bit harder.
Instead, we need a new principle that will not include state-money in any form or shape.
Good luck finding a currency that is not "state-money." The state does a wonderful thing. It provides legitimacy to investment vehicles. It does so through imposing (or eliminating) liability for transactions failures of various sorts. If you don't recognize the importance of that (or propose a private solution that does a similar thing) then you aren't worth listening to. Remember that multiple-issuer currencies have been tried before in just about any economy you choose to name. There is a reason none exist anymore. (Bad money displaces good, or any other of 15 college or early graduate level economics courses will enlighten you if you choose to pursue them with anything like interest).
Thinking aloud ... this may be silly:
Let's start from something that works - secret key message exchange, maybe enhanced with PK key exchange for the carefree. A person, by defintion, trusts itself, so currency known only to the two parties should be reasonably safe. Every pair of traders have their own currency. A disbalance (A owes B but C owes A) is resolved by creating new B-C currency. There is no anonymity, but the network is hardly connected and therefore reasonably safe. The system is hardly new but it was never done in software AFAIK. You never do business with someone whose reputation you can't instrument. But someone can start a business for reputation building. Again, hardly new.
Not new? Name 5 prominent reputation brokers. Reputation services? Reputation clearing agents? What manner of reputation do they measure? Trustworthiness? Identity? Creditworthiness? One? None? All? (I can only think of two, neither of which approach the level of sophistication you propose here).
This doesn't enable global trade, but frankly I don't care. I don't gain much from it anyway.
Oh boy.
Going through a series of intermediaries to buy some fine Afghan pot is a small price to pay for getting out of the state's sight.
You want work too hard to stay out of the state's sight.
In other words, with small transistors and digsigs there is no need for centralised money at all. No more mainframes, thank you. Big business will suffer, but somehow I don't feel sad.
Tell me a bit more about how wonderful the world would be without economies of scale.
So, tell me, is this silly ?
Uh... sure. (Incidentally, it's "Illusory Delusions." "Ilusional" isn't a word. It's also "Imbalance" not "Disbalance"). I'm prone to typo occasionally too, but try not to make words up unless your in uncharted waters, eh?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 12:53:18AM -0600, someone claiming to be Black Unicorn wrote: | > Thinking aloud ... this may be silly: | > | > Let's start from something that works - secret key message exchange, | > maybe enhanced with PK key exchange for the carefree. A person, by | > defintion, trusts itself, so currency known only to the two parties | > should be reasonably safe. Every pair of traders have their own | > currency. A disbalance (A owes B but C owes A) is resolved by creating | > new B-C currency. There is no anonymity, but the network is hardly | > connected and therefore reasonably safe. The system is hardly new but it | > was never done in software AFAIK. You never do business with someone | > whose reputation you can't instrument. But someone can start a business | > for reputation building. Again, hardly new. | | Not new? Name 5 prominent reputation brokers. Reputation services? | Reputation clearing agents? What manner of reputation do they measure? | Trustworthiness? Identity? Creditworthiness? One? None? All? (I can | only think of two, neither of which approach the level of sophistication you | propose here). Dun and Bradstreet Standard and Poors Consumers Union Visa Experian The Food and Drug Administration (interesting because you'll sometimes see "Approved by the US FDA" on not-for-the-US packaging, but they're number 6 on my list.) Just had to pick that nit. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Tuesday, December 25, 2001, at 01:38 PM, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 12:53:18AM -0600, someone claiming to be Black Unicorn wrote: | Not new? Name 5 prominent reputation brokers. Reputation services? | Reputation clearing agents? What manner of reputation do they measure? | Trustworthiness? Identity? Creditworthiness? One? None? All? (I can | only think of two, neither of which approach the level of sophistication you | propose here).
Dun and Bradstreet Standard and Poors Consumers Union Visa Experian The Food and Drug Administration (interesting because you'll sometimes see "Approved by the US FDA" on not-for-the-US packaging, but they're number 6 on my list.)
Just had to pick that nit.
I didn't read far enough into BU's piece to see him asking such a silly question, or I would have also offered S&P and D&B as examples. "Foobarcorp's rating has been lowered from AAA to AA." Like it or not, they are in the business of reputation rating. So is a Notary Public. So is a restaurant reviewer in a newspaper. So are Siskel and Ebert, er, Ebert and That New Guy. So are the kosher meat dudes who stamp "Kosher" on food approved for consumption by Jews. So are the "PC Labs" and other reviewers of new PC hardware. We are swimming in a sea of such reputation services, just as we are swimming in what is basically an anarchic ocean. --Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
Just skimming the list after coming back from vacation... Dan Klein has written a nice book titled "Reputation" which I frequently recommend. Looks at some of these examples in detail from a self- regulatory, free-market perspective. -Declan On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 05:51:01PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
I didn't read far enough into BU's piece to see him asking such a silly question, or I would have also offered S&P and D&B as examples. "Foobarcorp's rating has been lowered from AAA to AA." Like it or not, they are in the business of reputation rating.
So is a Notary Public. So is a restaurant reviewer in a newspaper. So are Siskel and Ebert, er, Ebert and That New Guy.
So are the kosher meat dudes who stamp "Kosher" on food approved for consumption by Jews.
So are the "PC Labs" and other reviewers of new PC hardware.
We are swimming in a sea of such reputation services, just as we are swimming in what is basically an anarchic ocean.
--Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
participants (5)
-
AARG! Anonymous -
Adam Shostack -
Black Unicorn -
Declan McCullagh -
Tim May