Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:16:01 ADT
gary@aaa-mainstreet.nl
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:02:27 -0500
Nahum
> At 04:11 98-03-16 -0000, gary@hotlava.com wrote:
> Gary, an interesting critique of Bob's proposal. I have a few observations:
>
> >> That goes for financial information as
> >> well: cash, equity, debt, or any derivative thereof. So, how do you
> >> clear and settle transactions even if you can now execute them
> >> geodesically? With digital bearer settlement.
> >
> >The only way we'll see "point to point" transactions is with the
> >use of stored value smart cards like Mondex, or perhaps a system
> >where individuals issue their own currency ("trustbucks").
> I personally do not share yet either one of these statements.
>
> Bob, can you write a brief (max 10 lines) Statement of Problem and a
> similiarly brief Description of your Concept? As a budding entrepreneur
> you will surely have to describe your system to the indifferent VC crowd
> early or later. Try us first here. Perhaps it will lead to something useful.
>
> Gary, can you place here equally brief statement on whether the problem
> which Bob proposes to solve is a genuine one and what is your way of
> resolving it?
The point is that a "digital certificate" is simply a string of bits.
It can *never* be a *bearer* string of bits, since the original bearer
does not lose the certificate after giving it to a third party.
Regardless of whether these "bearer certificates" are Digicash style
"ecash coins" or book-entry style "e-cheques", they are not bearer devices,
even if they are made payable to "anyone", so that the first "bearer" to
take it to the bank gets the money.
Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the word "bearer", but to me
"bearer" implies that the "holder" has the value of the relevant
device. In the case of e-cash or e-cheques that are "payable" to
anyone, only the first to the bank gets the value of the device,
even if there are hundreds of other "bearers" of this string of bits
out there.
Now, my guess is that someone is going to say "ah, of course. what really
happens is that you must check the validity of the certificate with the
issuer, and then you assigned a new bearer instrument, and the old ones
lose their value". This sounds like a book entry system to me, where the
"certificate" is the "password" to the account. Yes, there may be
subtle differences such as unlinkability if blinding is used, but then
why not rave on about "unlinkable transactions" instead of "bearer certs"?
The bottom line is that "bearer" devices should not require validation
by the issuer.
> >> Put simply, it is now technologically possible to create digital
> >> bearer certificates representing cash, debt, equity, or any
> >> derivative thereof.
> >
> >Completely and utterly wrong. Never has been possible, and never will
> >be.
> Gary, never is a very strong word and in Internet might mean as long as 2.5
> calendar years. Briefly, why do you believe it's concptually impossible to
> do?
Because data cannot be bearer. bearer devices must be physical.
> >> That's why I think this technology is so
> >> important, and not just because of its remarkable implications for
> >> our own personal financial privacy. Economic reality is never
> >> optional, just like it wasn't when the New York Stock Exchange
> >> transaction glut in the late 60's resulted in the eventual death of
> >> physical bearer settlement in the early 1980's. If digital bearer
> >> settlement actually works, the entire financial landscape is going to
> >> change. Tectonically.
> >
> >The only way it might work is with hardware based devices like
> >Mondex. This makes use of a decentralised database, and is more applicable
> >to your geodisic bearer certicate system stuff - but if you're thinking
> >of a software only solution, it can never work.
> The only way? Gary, I doubt this one.
I say "only" because we have two choices - centralised database (e.g. book
entry) and decentralised database (e.g. bearer devices such as dollar notes).
Decentralised implies bearer devices, which implies physical devices (i.e.
hardware).
> >I don't mean to be offensive here, Bob, but I did try to get
> >these points across to you at FC97.
> Gary, I'm sure Bob knows well who you are but for the sake of the rest of
> us, can you sign your submissions more clearly?
Sorry, I mailed the wrong file by mistake.
> >The payment system that ian and I developed was book entry
> ian who?
Ian Grigg and myself develop a payment system for bond trading a couple of years back.
(however, we have since gone our own ways).
Gary Howland <gary@hotlava.com>
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:16:01 ADT