digital cash/legal tender
Legal tender is a quality given by government to certain forms of money such that a creditor who refuses to accept that money in payment of a debt loses certain rights (e.g. to collect further interest. In our system, federal reserve notes are legal tender,your personal check is not. It is acceptability, not government edict wich makes something money. (Note the development of NOW accounts, e.g.). Credit cards are not money. When you use a credit card, you are promising to pay in the future. The merchant sells this promise to the credit card issuer. In order for electronic money to be true cash, it must be able to circulate from Alice to Bob to Carl to Dave without the need to contact the issuing bank. Otherwise, it is merely an electronic check, perhaps anonymous. If Bob must deposit or validate the money first in order to make sure Alice doesn't double spend it, then it is no different from Alice having $200 in her checking account and writing a $150 check to Bob and a $150 check to Carl. The first one who gets it to her bank collects, the other one has it bounced back.
F_GRIFFITH@ccsvax.sfasu.edu says:
In order for electronic money to be true cash, it must be able to circulate from Alice to Bob to Carl to Dave without the need to contact the issuing bank. Otherwise, it is merely an electronic check, perhaps anonymous.
No digicash system can possibly operate under this constraint. Mere numbers, unlike gold, can be duplicated. Without some sort of central verification involved the techniques cannot work. I suppose "true" digitcal cash by your definition is impossible. Perry
Perry E. Metzger () writes:
F_GRIFFITH@ccsvax.sfasu.edu says:
In order for electronic money to be true cash, it must be able to circulate from Alice to Bob to Carl to Dave without the need to contact the issuing bank. Otherwise, it is merely an electronic check, perhaps anonymous.
No digicash system can possibly operate under this constraint. Mere numbers, unlike gold, can be duplicated. Without some sort of central verification involved the techniques cannot work. I suppose "true" digitcal cash by your definition is impossible.
Doesn't Chaum's "observer" based system allow digi-coins to work? (e.g. by carrying around copy protection which prevents you from 'cp'ing cash instead of 'mv'ing it, or prevention of double spending?) Observer's may not be cypherpunk-correct technology but they might work with legal (govt) backing. Counterfeiters who "copy" cash by breaking the tamper-proof observers would be hunted down through traditional investigatory means. The economy/banks might take a hit the way credit card companies get hit by con-artists, but overall they would remain stable. Does anyone have a reference on Chaum's observers besides the SciAm article (which I read a long time ago and have now forgotten)? -Ray -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
Ray says:
No digicash system can possibly operate under this constraint. Mere numbers, unlike gold, can be duplicated. Without some sort of central verification involved the techniques cannot work. I suppose "true" digitcal cash by your definition is impossible.
Doesn't Chaum's "observer" based system allow digi-coins to work? (e.g. by carrying around copy protection which prevents you from 'cp'ing cash instead of 'mv'ing it, or prevention of double spending?)
Such a system would depend on people trying to break the system being unsophisticated. I do not believe you can rely on trick hardware to provide "copy protection" for digital coins. Perry
participants (3)
-
F_GRIFFITH＠CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU -
Perry E. Metzger -
rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu