On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 11:25:19PM -0500, Faustine wrote: > Getting away fron digital cash for a moment, If you'd care to point me to any > examples of crypto companies really focused and committed to developing > applications that are commercially appealing to Joe Sixpack AOLuser, I'd be > interested to hear about them. Is it really such a stretch to say that most
Tim already offered some counterexamples to your claim. But let's not get away from digital cash for the moment. The reasons we don't have digital cash are different from the reasons we don't have widely deployed crypto, say for email or hard drive security. Crypto's not-as-extensive-as-possible use is due mostly to deployment problems, and to a lesser extent user interface problems (ever try to teach your mom/grandmother to use PGP and manage keys, even with the plugins?). While algorithms may have changed, the basic approach to crypto hasn't. Politics isn't standing in the way: Even the US didn't try to ban crypto after Sep. 11. To crypto-fy a communication, all you need is two consenting users. Not so with digital cash. It also suffers from deployment problems, of course, but far more substantial regulatory ones. You need two consenting users -- and a tie-in to the banking system (preferable) or at least some exchange of value (like e-gold) that's sufficiently trusted. Crypto may peeve the FBI, but widespread digital cash is far more alarming to governments, which will not permit true digital cash to be deployed in any popular way. One obvious way to limit its utility is to restrict its tie-ins with the banking system, or prohibit businesses within their borders from using it. That's the crypto winter. -Declan
