At 4:52 AM -0800 2/29/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>The e-gold execs told me on multiple occasions at FC they will freeze
>accounts if they think the activity is "suspicious," and dare the account
>holders to sue them in US courts to unfreeze it. They cited Ponzi schemes
>as one use they found unacceptable. They assured me FWIW that they will
>refund the grams in the frozen account.
>
"E-Gold" has never even been remotely interesting for our purposes.
And what is "suspicious"? It would be very easy to send
"suspicion-inducing" messages to holders of e-gold accounts. "Shipment of
Columbian flake has arrived--transfer e-gold as per orders." Or blizzards
of "Make Money Fast" messages, with the depositing account being the E-Gold
accounts of one or more accounts.
(A bit too obvious, but useful to drown the E-Gold folks in a "snowstorm"
of suspicion-inducing messages. More subtly-crafted messages are possible.)
Once enough accounts have been frozen, with the account holders "dared" to
sue in U.S. courts, all confidence in E-Gold will evaporate.
Sounds like an excellent way to nuke these guys.
A bank which freezes on suspicion and then "dares" the account holder to
sue in U.S. courts is headed for oblivion.
Given that gold is fungible anyway, just what the hell is the supposed
advantage of "grams of gold," except to gold worshippers, compared to any
other fungible unit of money? What matters is not whether they claim to
have little bars of gold sitting in socks in their drawer, or vaults in
their garage, or whatever...what matter is what their _policies_ are.
And their policies seem to suck.
--Tim May
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
