At 8:19 PM -0500 3/6/00, dmolnar wrote:
> If payment mixes come online and the only visible users are "money
> launderers", then this common carrier argument will be difficult.
> Unfortunately, it seems to me that the early adopters of payment mixes may
> well be the "money launderers" -- it may take a while to convince other
> people that a payment mix is essential for their privacy and that they
> should use it.
This is, of course, why I say that the very technology of money, and the
*economics* of same, is the entire issue.
If anonymous money is *cheaper*, then it'll happen whether the law as
currently promulgated wants it to, or not, especially if it *really*
cheaper.
I say it over and over again, but it's still true. Reality, economic or
otherwise, is not optional.
Fortunately, I think that anonymous money *will* be cheaper, whether it's
true or not, and I think we'll find out soon enough :-), I do sleep easier
at night for it.
Cheers,
RAH
Who's not about to give up, just yet...
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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'
