-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- David G.W. Birch <daveb@hyperion.co.uk> wrote:

Johan,

...

Careful there. At least ecash is a registered trademark. And as far as I know

It is alleged that a trademark has been applied for on the term "ecash" in some countries: that's why Robert was careful (as we always are) to use the term "e-cash" instead.

"Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered with the Benelux trademark office and the United States trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an intellectual property rights lawyer.

...

Mondex isn't one of the true electronic cash systems. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't mondex an electronic debit card system?

Mondex is _the only_ true electronic cash system in the world that I know of, precisely because it isn't an electronic debit card system (like Avant) or digital travellers' cheques (like Digicash).

I think it would behoove us all to clarify our terms. I call Ecash(tm) coins "electronic cash" for several reasons. Ecash(tm) has all of the following characteristics in common with conventional cash, in descending order of importance: 1. Unforgeability. Ecash(tm) coins have intrinsic value because they are cryptographically impossible to forge. 2. Finality. Payments are cleared on the spot. No outstanding payment obligations remain after a purchase. 3. Bi-directionality. Payers and recipients use the same software and the same protocol. It is not necessary for recipients to be specially trusted by the bank or by the payers. 4. Privacy. The privacy of Ecash(tm) payers is mathematically unconditional. 5. Composability. You can make large Ecash(tm) payments out of a collection of smaller Ecash(tm) coins. This is in contrast to a check-based system where you typically draw a check for the exact amount and transfer only a single check. 6. Small payments. Ecash(tm) coins are cheap enough to use that they are practical for small payments. (As a note, I do not use the word "micropayments" here, because I am beginning to think that a good technical definition of "micropayments" is "payments whose value is less than the cost of using current electronic coins". This qualifies schemes like Shamir's and disqualifies, well... current electronic coins.) There might be other angles we should talk about here. I think that the first quality is the defining one, technically. So, could a knowledgeable person e.g. Mr. Birch tell us why Mondex should be considered to be "electronic cash"? And similarly I would like to hear an informed opinion about why Ecash(tm) should not be considered "electronic cash". I tend to agree that Ecash(tm) would be even _more_ cashlike if it were cleared off-line, but I don't consider that difference very fundamental. (_Any_ digital money based on our current understandings will have to be cleared at a central clearer eventually, since digital information is perfectly copyable.) Thank you for your correspondance. Regards, Bryce Ecash 2.x Team  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMepI/UjbHy8sKZitAQEiJwL/VnpQEHL1rOQ6Hm9JIEgAfCGjSKOPaIiC Jp7EVjvPoFYEsQAS4iUWybNLpxi/23uaqpXMCSNMrEwqd8WeC5ZSISldIEK/BnYE 2bULeAeMhIqm92bP6o64ok1NBGPfvK5X =ANO4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----