[4216] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: bearer = anonymous = freedom to contract
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Mon Feb 15 22:18:48 1999
In-Reply-To: <19990215154132.A28173@eskimo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:03:57 -0500
To: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>, Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Cc: dbs@philodox.com, dcsb@ai.mit.edu, micropay@ai.mit.edu, e$@vmeng.com,
cryptography@c2.net, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, mac-crypto@vmeng.com
At 6:41 PM -0500 on 2/15/99, Wei Dai wrote:
> Thanks, Adam, for this great explanation. It certainly cleared up my
> confusion.
Speak for yourself? :-).
> I think it is slightly unfortunate
Your use of the word "unfortunate" is unfortunate in and of itself. :-).
> that RAH chose to identify "bearer"
> with instant settlement, since it is conceivable that an electronic
> payment system operating out of a jurisdiction with no illegal contracts
> could offer instant settlement even when everything is based on book-entry
> accounts.
Not true. I claim that the closer you get to a cheap, instantaneous,
electronic, book-entry settled transaction over an insecure public
internetwork, the closer you have to frontload the authorization, the
"signature" of the intermediary in the transaction. In fact, that's the
most important part of the transaction, the reputation of the transaction's
guarantor. You end up with a cryptographic object which whose only
information component is the value of the asset and the guarantee of a
financial intermediary. A digital bearer certificate, in other words.
C'mon guys. Why do you think that DigiCash calls it's cryptographic objects
"coins"? Why do you think that MicroMint calls itself a "mint"? Why do you
think that Millicent calls it's "tokens" "scrip"? It's kind of hard to talk
the talk unless you're walking the walk, most of the time. At least in
private enterprize.
Wake up and smell the coffee, here. We're talking about digital *bearer*
transactions.
> Perhaps we can use the terms "payment system with instant settlement"
> (PSIS) and "payment system with delayed settlement" (PSDS) instead? Then
> we can also distinguish between PSIS with accounts and accountless PSIS,
> and PSIS with anonymity and without, and so on.
A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. If it quacks like a duck, et cetera.
Sheesh.
Cheers,
Robert Hettinga
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
