Re: Voice/Fax Checks
At 10:52 PM 7/20/94 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
"Don't bother. Take out the check you were going to send me, read me the routing code and check number on the bottom. Give me your name and address and the bank's name and address as they appear on the check, the amount you will pay and the date. I'll collect that check electronically without you having to bother to send it."
This is exactly the problem we're having with identifying a market for digital cash. There's no unique selling proposition besides privacy. There are too many real good substitutes, like this one for checks. E-mail with the above information in it can be encrypted and signed, and would be secure enough to make a real good check in its own right. This is like my favorite quote (in InforWorld) about Macs: "It seems that 85% of the market will settle for 75% of a Macintosh." By no means take this to mean that digital cash isn't going to make it. I figure all e$ now, including the encrypted check above, is kind of like aviation was in the beginning. It's really cool that that it works, we can make some pretty good guesses as to its possible uses, but nobody's built the "DC-3" which proves once and for all its commercial necessity. I expect that the only way to find out whether digital cash is gonna make it on it's own is when someone risks a small pile and implements it. Let the devil take the hindmost, more guts than brains, and all that. It looks like maybe that's what Chaum and Co. is going to try to do, with this test of theirs. Has anyone out there been contacted about it yet? Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923
At 10:52 PM 7/20/94 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
"Don't bother. Take out the check you were going to send me, read me the routing code and check number on the bottom. Give me your name and address and the bank's name and address as they appear on the check, the amount you will pay and the date. I'll collect that check electronically without you having to bother to send it."
This is exactly the problem we're having with identifying a market for digital cash. There's no unique selling proposition besides privacy. There are too many real good substitutes, like this one for checks. E-mail with the above information in it can be encrypted and signed, and would be secure enough to make a real good check in its own right. This is like my favorite quote (in InforWorld) about Macs: "It seems that 85% of the market will settle for 75% of a Macintosh."
The selling point for digital cash is that it has a low transaction cost and can easily be used for extremelly small transactions. If agent A and agent B want to do business without bothering their owners, you had better have some robust digicash.
Fellow Cypherpunks, (Sorry to break in on the flames about bimbos, tentacles, and quantum computers, etc. And since I have nothing to say about new releases of PGP 2.6ui, CFS, WinPGP, or PGS, I'll focus on some things that interest me these days.) solman@MIT.EDU wrote:
The selling point for digital cash is that it has a low transaction cost and can easily be used for extremelly small transactions. If agent A and agent B want to do business without bothering their owners, you had better have some robust digicash.
Very fine granularity digital cash--sub-cent levels, even sub-millicent levels--could have many uses. Multiple transactions, transations by "agents" (like Telescript will reportedly have), etc. Cypherpunks should be aware of several tie-ins that some of our members are working on: * Norm Hardy and Dean Tribble have been working on a scheme called "Digital Silk Road," or DSR, in which fractional-cent payments may be made without incurring the full overhead of a commlink to a bank clearinghouse, for example. (As communication charges drop, the overhead cost of a clearinghouse call could be small enough not to matter, but not for a while....and I'd still worry about the speed of light delays if nothing else!). - a version of their DSR work should be available in the usual places (Netcom's ftp site, the ftp.csua.berkeley.edu site, and various Cypherpunks-oriented URLs that get posted here often). * Mark Miller, Eric Drexler, and others have worked on a scheme they call "agorics," for computer-mediated markets, auctioning of computer resources, etc. This developed from work with Xanadu and AMIX, and other places. (Ironically, my last major project at Intel, in 1986, was the explication of a 'Frame-Based Manufacturing System,' in which scarce wafer fab resources are bought and sold in a manufacturing ecology. Miller and Drexler visited my old group a year or so after I left to talk to them....by this time I also knew Miller and Drexler in other contexts.) - Mark will be speaking on the Agorics Project, and the connections to crypto, at the next Cypherpunks meeting. (Miller, Tribble, Hardy, and others are working on several projects of potential interest to us: the "Joule" programming language (built in Smalltalk, as I recall, but eventually to be ported to a faster and lower footprint form), the "CORBA-mite" (I hope I got the spelling right...it's a pun) extension to C++, and some network allocation work involving special kinds of auctions. (The common thread is one of market processes, such as the George Mason U. folks are interested in, the economic theories of F. Hayek that underly modern libertarian economics, and the very common sensical notion that things have costs and that agent who want things more than other agents should expect to pay more. "Computational ecologies" is another buzzword, and there are obvious resonances with "ariticial life." In fact, it was at the first A-LIFE conference, in 1987, that I met Mark Miller--I already knew Drexler.) * Software payment schemes, including "superdistribution" and the various ideas of Brad Cox, Peter Sprague, etc., are very much related to fine granularity digital cash. * The amazing new book by Kevin Kelly, "Out of Control," has a chapter devoted to digital money. Pick it up at your local bookstore--it should be in even the tiniest of stores--and at least skim the chapter on digital money. Don't be scared off by the opening line of the chapter, in which yours truly compares strong crypto to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile! (For the curious, Kevin used his "Whole Earth Review" article from last summer as the basis for this chapter.) * In a related note, we discussed this book at the most recent "Assembler Multitudes" gathering in Palo Alto. This group meets to discuss the implications of technology, with a historical focus on nanotechnology. Ted Kaehler, one of the creators of Smalltalk at Xerox PARC in the 70s, and now working with Alan Kay at Apple, says this book is the most exciting thing he's seen in many years. I mostly agree. * I also described my ideas on a "protocol ecology," a soup of agents (named after our crypto friends Alice, Bob, Charles, Eve, and so on) interacting with cryptographic primitives and combining methods and behaviors. (Basically, Koza-style genetic programming, but done with method combination on primitives, rather than LISP- or C++-style mutation and rewriting of code.) I suspect this short description is not enough to make clear what I have in mind...it took me an hour to flesh out the explanation to Ted (and to others present, including Nick Szabo). It may have relevance to digital cash schemes, and attacks and defenses, in terms of evolving complex interactive protocols. (Think of Doug Lenat's Eurisko, from the early 1980s.) I'll write more on this, and the work I've been doing with SmalltalkAgents, when it's further along. * Finally, some of our attendees at the local Cypherpunks meetings--I'm thinking specifically of Scott Collins and Fen LeBalme--have experience at General Magic and Apple with "Telescript" and agents. Little word is leaking out on Telescript--our own Peter Wayner could say little concrete about it in his article for "Byte" several months back. But it could be very important. So, there's a lot of exciting stuff going on. I'm convinced that the vaunted tongue-twister of the 1960s and 70s, "mutually suspicious cooperating agents," will come to the fore again. (If you don't get this reference, sorry.) Reputations, agents, agorics, and digital money. Living in perfect harmony. I hope. (I now return control of the Cypherpunks Channel to its normal programming schedule of insults, babes, political correctness lectures, rants about, to, and from Detweiler, and, on tonight's viewing schedule, "Cayman Islands H.E.A.T."(*). --Tim May (* Who else considers it not a coincidence that the babelicious Alison Armitage shares a last name--or close--with a denizen of Bill Gibson's world? The cypher/cyberpunk connection we've all been hunting for? Cyphermancer?) -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Robert Hettinga writes
... the problem we're having with identifying a market for digital cash. There's no unique selling proposition besides privacy. There are too many real good substitutes, like this one for checks. E-mail with the above information in it can be encrypted and signed, and would be secure enough to make a real good check in its own right.
All existing substitutes are either insecure (credit cards) or involve excessive labor and transaction costs. Electronic transactions will take off like a rocket once they *undercut* existing methods. As yet, our mail encryption interface is still bad. Convenient crypto cash must come after convenient crypto mail. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com
participants (4)
-
jamesd＠netcom.com -
rah＠shipwright.com -
solman＠MIT.EDU -
tcmay＠netcom.com