The Pulp Theorem (Re: Digital Cash)

[georgemw at speakeasy.net]

On 12 Jul 2001, at 15:41, Morlock Elloi wrote:

> 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. 

You say that now,  but what if the day comes when digital
currency schemes have been in successful operation for years,
and there are goods or services you desire that can be had far 
cheaper (or only) if you use digital currency?

YOU won't dive in with the stuff,  but assuming it can be made to
work at all,  there may be enough brave/foolhardy people to
bootstrap the system to the point where it has been
demonstrated "safe".

BTW,  the usual term for what you call "pupability" is 
"accountability".  Usually one speaks of people being "held 
accountable" rather than "pulped".  I'm not criticizing your
choice of terminology,  but I think communication is facilitated
if people stick tostandard terminology rather than
making up their own.  Also,  bank officers caught defrauding their
customers in the real world are more likely to be sent to minimum
security prison rather than bludgeoned to death. 


> b) The competition (government) will pulp the pulpable mint.
> 
Possibly.  Or there's another possibility,  that maybe the 
government officials who have "pulping" authority will become
clients of digital cash systems themselves.  

> 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.
> 
> 

Seldom say never.  BTW,  a PhD helps you get chicks?  Where?

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