The Crypto-Financial Paradox

[Steve Schear]

At 09:22 AM 11/22/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>     --
>On 21 Nov 2001, at 2:02, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> > This is nothing new for long-time subscribers to this list.
> > As Eric Hughes kept saying when I first got here in 1994,
> > it is immediate and final settlement that attracts the
> > capital and payment system markets to cryptographic
> > protocols like Chaum's blind signatures, and not
> > particularly anonymity.
>
>People want immediate and final settlement when purchasing
>rights over assets.   They do not want immediate and final
>settlement when purchasing services, or goods that must be
>physically delivered.  Rather, for physical delivery, they
>want the final settlement to be as closely tied to actual
>delivery as possible --they want the arbitration provided by
>the credit card companies.
>
> > So, as has ever been the case, whoever builds a robust,
> > instantly-settled, identity-independent,
> > internet-ubiquitous transaction mechanism that actually
> > works in production for assets people want to trade in
> > large quantity is going to do quite well for themselves by
> > saving the entire economy a whole lot of money
>
>In such a system, the digital certificates must ultimately
>reflect control over assets, in other words they must be
>functionally equivalent to bearer bonds and, more
>importantly, bearer shares.
>
>Needless to say, bearer shares are illegal almost everywhere.
>
>Any system that does what you describe must be located in a
>haven, and will be met by great wrath.

Nah..  bearer shares are legal for any common Nevada corporation.

steve