Your source code, for sale

Tyler Durden camera_lumina at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 8 06:58:34 PST 2004


Oh, I assumed that this verification 'layer' was disjoint from the e$ layer. 
In other words, you might have a 3rd party e$ issuer, but after that they 
shouldn't be necessary....or, there's a different 3rd party for the 
verification process.

I think that's reasonable, but of course one could argue "what's the point 
if you already need a 3rd party for the e$". But I think that's a disjoint 
set of issues.

-TD

>From: Ben Laurie <ben at algroup.co.uk>
>To: Tyler Durden <camera_lumina at hotmail.com>
>CC: chris.kuethe at gmail.com, cypherpunks at al-qaeda.net
>Subject: Re: Your source code, for sale
>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:50:28 +0000
>
>Tyler Durden wrote:
>>
>>>What if I block the outbound "release the money" message after I
>>>unbundle the images. Sure, I've already committed my money, but you
>>>can't get to it. In effect I've just ripped you off, because I have
>>>usable product and you don't have usable money.
>>
>>
>>Well, yes, but this would be a very significant step forward from the 
>>current situation. As t-->infinity the vast majority of non-payments are 
>>going to be for the purpose of greed. If the payment is already 'gone', 
>>then you need a whole different set of motives for wanting to screw 
>>somebody even if you get nothing out of it. So in other words, you have at 
>>least solved the payment problem "to the first order", with no 3rd party. 
>>With fancier mechanisms I would think you can solve it to 2nd order too.
>
>How do you make the payment already "gone" without using a third party?

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list