Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:16:02 ADT
Linn H. Stanton (lstanton@bkls.com)
Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:03:20 -0500
On 16 Mar 1998 04:11:13 -0000, gary@aaa-mainstreet.nl said:
...lines on ATM pricing deleted...
gary> The cost is more likely related to what the customer is prepared
gary> to pay - it's just one part of a big system, and does not necessarily
gary> have to be financially viable by itself.
All too true. In Canada there is a wonderful example of cartel pricing: all
of the major banks got together and decided that they would all charge CDN$1
for any use of another bank's ATMs, and that none of them would create
classes of accounts where these fees were waived. This leads to some wonderful
paradoxes, such as the fact that I always use my no-ATM-access-charge ATM card
from a US bank to get Canadian money.
gary> > of all geodesic networks. It's now almost always cheaper to add an
gary> > automated "switch" and break up information into more immediately
gary> > usable pieces for the people who need it most than it is to aggregate
gary> > information and pass it up and then down through a hierarchical
gary> > organization/market/network.
gary>
gary> Really? I'm not saying you're wrong here, but this does seem a little
gary> difficult to believe. Comments on this anyone?
Look at the changes on the internet in the past (I'm going to date myself
here) 15 years. Back then, almost everything that is now done via mailing
list was done via usenet news, often over UUCP. Now that nodes are cheap
and the network has a much richer set of connections, targeted mailing lists
like this one are the accepted way to interact.
gary> The only way we'll see "point to point" transactions is with the
gary> use of stored value smart cards like Mondex, or perhaps a system
gary> where individuals issue their own currency ("trustbucks").
If you say 'first' instead of 'only', I'll agree, especially for transactions
involving individuals. Corporate-to-corporate (and particularly bank-to-bank)
transactions via stored value mechanisms are unlikely. Don't forget how large
a chunk of the economy business-to-business trade is.
gary> Blind signatures allow the creation of what can be considered
gary> "bankers cheques" (as they are called in the UK) - essentially
gary> a cheque from the bank. The blinding allows the purchase of
gary> these cheques in such a manner that the bank cannot determine
gary> the "serial number" on the cheque, and therefore cannot tie up
gary> withdrawls with deposits. This "bankers cheque" is no more a
gary> bearer device than is a personal cheque.
How do you see this as differing from cash, the ultimate bearer
instrument? If you can't tie withdrawals and deposits, you can have
as large a secondary market as you wish, in which these bankers
cheques are bearer instruments.
gary> Sure, physical cheques, both personal and bankers, are bearer
gary> instruments (or at least can be in some circumstances). Digital
gary> cheques, whether banker, personal or any other, *cannot ever*
gary> be a bearer device, since it is simply a chunk of information
gary> that can be copied. The only way to obtain bearer decices in
gary> the electronic world is by the introduction of something
gary> physical into the system, such as a smart card (e.g. stored value
gary> cards like Mondex).
I think I see what's going on here. You feel that it is the uncopyability
of a bearer instrument that gives it its value. I disagree. What gives
a bearer instrument value is that you can only spend it once. To take
cash as an example, if I make 10 copies of a $20 bill that are black and
white so no one will accept them, the $20 is still a bearer instrument.
And if I make 10 copies that are good enough that everyone will take them,
they are all bearer instruments in a system that is in need of better
verification systems.
gary> This raises an interesting question - what is the smallest
gary> transaction likely to be practical. A millionth of a cent
gary> seems very impractical. Comments anyone?
Here we can have a real debate. Personally, I could see a use for
amounts at least as small as tenths of a cent for transaction costs.
Maybe hundreths, probably not thousandths.
gary> Not true. *All* payment systems require validation of the
gary> "certificate" with the issuer of the currency, assuming you aren't
gary> talking about systems involving physical security (e.g. stored value
gary> smart cards) or trust, which i don't believe you are. In addition,
Why do you feel mathematical validation is less powerful than physical?
gary> There are other downsides too. Take the "perfect crime" example,
gary> where ransom payments are demanded using unlinkable "bearer"
gary> certificates. This is a serious problem, and there is only
gary> one solution (ignore claims of "one way anonymity" from Digicash -
But my solution is to very different from yours. I'd happily give up the
ability to trace transactions even in criminal cases.
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:16:02 ADT