On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:08 PM, John Young wrote:

lawyers

At the core of e-gold was a very strong belief that "regulatory arbitrage", as Eric Hughes called it here on cypherpunks, was actually possible. In many ways, Barry Downey was a legal genius. It seemed to me that were more domiciles operated in by e-gold than there are thoraxes (thoraces?) in the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge at Summer Solstice. Apparently, that trick never works, as Tim May -- possibly channeling June Foray :-) -- was constantly saying. Unfortunately, the crypto we on cypherpunks wanted to solve the problem with isn't cheap enough to replace book-entry transactions and turn the tide from "transparency" back to privacy. So far. There are indications (identity "theft", for instance) that the closer you get to instantaneity of transactions, the more expensive identity- based, and thus book-entry, transaction settlement gets. However, what we really need is something in the opposite direction, a kind of Moore's Law for digital bearer financial cryptography protocols, something that shows us that the closer we get to T-0 transaction settlement, the cheaper digital bearer transactions on ubiquitous internetworks get, and preferably exponentially so. Frankly, I would prefer the absence of a special case, needing an asymptote at T-0 to go run and hide behind, but I expect any freedom- loving financial professional would take anything he could get at this point. In the meantime, remember that "National Technical Means" includes rubber hoses, folks. "The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations." -David Friedman, 'The Machinery of Freedom' "Tell that to the Tutsis in Rwanda." --Timothy C. May And, apparently, Dr. Jackson, Mr. Downey, et al... Cheers, RAH