Problems with anonymous escrow 2--response

[John E. Kreznar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hal <hfinney at shell.portal.com> writes:

> On the other hand, untransferrable credentials are undesirable from the
> point of view of privacy. ...  It is true that at
> least the ultimate linkage between pseudonym and physical body is broken,
> but to the extent that your on-line activities _are_ your pseudonym, it
> is no more desirable to allow dossiers to be built up about your on-line
> personality than your off-line life.

But is this really true?  If a seller is using the pseudonym just to
defend himself against uninvited third parties such as tax collectors,
it would seem that accumulation of a dossier would be useless as long as
the physical seller can't be found.  What would be gained by
transferring the credential (the evidence of the seller's marketable
skills or whatever he's selling) to a new pseudonym?  I assume that the
seller receives payment by some anonymous method, perhaps electronic
cash.  Am I missing something?

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar at ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLmmPh8Dhz44ugybJAQHBBgP7BOyYR6qWoR4rM4KKbA/G6zjoGKoyaKuH
Xp8VL57VPo+k8h1onolU9MoIpnBKMK45CL7atwRkgtNgSVzINgiCkl5xaeviVd15
+fv/xYdJz8evaINwxTA5AM5KCOxF90CsKlLqgyF/ZoGeMfwTYi4us1dHtJDr8Ot3
84RR3vFdYkk=
=oWFz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----