Clarification 1) unix munched out on some text. Para 2: "such a history is necessary only to clarify with currency and bearer instruments disputes over ownership....arg try again now "to clarify disputes over ownership, liens, and defects - things which are simply not problems with bearer instruments" Clarification 2) Digicoins may differ from ordinary currency in being revocable, but this is not necessary. That is, X loses his digicoin. Y finds it and uses it. Just like money. OR: X loses his digicoin. Y finds it but cannot use it b/c Y does not know the PIN. OR: X loses his digicoin. Y could use the digicoin, but X calls the issuing bank and they cancel the digicoin number. In the last scenario, the one most compatible with the 'chain of title' or verification-type approach, there is clearly a major privacy problem. At least this is the way I see it...