The Pulp Theorem (Re: Digital Cash)

[Morlock Elloi]

> Probably people would be willing to accept other issuers currencies even if
> they don't know the issuer so long as they had the reputation rating for the
> currency / issuer.
> 
> But anonymous reptuations alone aren't any use as a rational issuer would
> refuse to redeem if the action didn't adversely affect his reputation -- you
> need to be assured that the rating of the anonymous issuer will be downrated
> if they refuse to redeem.
> 
> So then perhaps you could proceed by having unlinkably anonymous credentials
> for reputation with a trap-door for the rating party so that the rating
> party can identify the pseudonym behind the unlinkable credential and
> downrate it.  You also want the unlinkable rating credentials to need to be
> refreshed by the rating credential issuer in order to re-show.  Brands'

This just shifting the issue without actually solving it - instead of mint
visibility now we have credential issuer visibility. There goes credential
issuer.

The basic point here is that:

a) most "public" (including me and the few that I talked with) will not "trust"
money that is pure math, without actual *people* (who can be pulped if
something goes wrong) behind it. Pulpability (in this special meaning) is a key
ingredient in trust - you trust someone that agrees to be hurt if she misuses
the trust. Fuck the math, new advances happen and most do not understand it any
way.

b) The competition (government) will pulp the pulpable mint.

So, n-way blind e-cash will never happen. It may be a nice thing to bullshit
about and to do PhD thesis and patents on and thus attract chicks, but it will
never happen.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/