Start Ups, Crypto Companies, and Commercialization

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On Sunday, December 23, 2001, at 01:29 AM, Bill Stewart
wrote:
> > But the easy part of doing digital cash is the software, 
> > and it doesn't take years of Stallman-level or
> > Chaum-level or Ian-or-Ben-or-Lucky-level wizardry to
> > produce it, though it's really helpful to have their
> > insights into what didn't work and what pieces were
> > useful for consumer-quality realizability.

On 23 Dec 2001, at 11:55, Tim May wrote:
> By the way, if "lots of people can turn the algorithm into
> reliable code," where _are_ the implementations? I see bits
> and pieces.
>
> [...]
>
> Evangelizing digital cash, when no real digital cash
> implementation exists, is getting things backwards.

As I said in an earlier posting, doing the software right is
not easy.  It is the upper edge of what can be done by the
lone enthusiast, and he has to be both enthusiastic -- (it is
a big project) and also pretty good.  There are lots of
moving parts, and they have to connect together in a way that
is handy and usable for the end user.

> Because Chaum wished to make money (not an ignoble goal),
> he limited access to the core of his system. (Whatever you
> want to call it, the algorithms, the implementations, the
> ability of others to build products, etc.) There were a
> series of "future by design" projects, but little
> evolutionary learning.

The controls on the flow of money have been tightening.  Ten
years ago the patents were the big problem.  Now the
"abusive" uses of digital money are a far more serious
problem.  With the patent close to running out, and the war
on terrorism being used for war on movement of money, war on
drugs, war on movement of people, patents are now a problem
scarcely worth thinking about. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     Un8Ul3GSu21y99/qFl3WEVs/4UZbbcEiRJl9UHD4
     4Z9Sf63qSdKxWNYywWB5qMSzQEBrsi/8HFph0IxB+