> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anonymous remailer)
> Date: 8 Mar 2000 01:40:32 -0000
> Subject: RE: About payee untraceability ...
>
> >the same time. The market might just as well punish your decision of
> >building the remote extortion possibility into the design -- in fact,
>
> Ah, these must be the reasons for the failure of that paper cash
> experiment.
>
> What ? It did not fail ? Paper cash is in use around the globe for
> hundreds of years ?
>
> Then this is the bullshit. While I can understand that SB will suck up
> to his employers, I detest the quality of this PR. His theoretical
> work is so much more elegant.
>
> Which only proves that social engineering is harder than math.
This will be my last message to the group on this issue for now,
since the discussion is now drifting into territory that serves
nobody.
My messages are not a suck-up to my employers or anyone else;
they represent my personal viewpoint. If you would know me,
and would know what I have had to go through in the past 7
years to prevent my research from being destroyed or blocked,
you would know that I would never suck up to anyone for any
reason. Also, I would never start insulting another person
in a discussion in order to alleviate my frustration about
a disagreement, let alone hide behind a remailer pseudonym
in such a situation.
Note also that I have never stated that I want full 2-way
anonymity to be outlawed -- I stated merely that it will
likely be held unacceptable for a large-scale open system.
The statement in the Wired article that "I would oppose"
such a movement is an inaccurate reflection of what I stated
at the FC conference.
With respect to your remark about paper cash, I want to point
out that there is a huge difference in the ease with which one
can use and misuse digital cash as opposed to paper cash. It
is absurd to suggest that the fact that paper cash has always
been very popular implies that there is no need to worry about
extortion in digital cash systems.
S t e f a n
