--- "SnowDog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >Seriously... What flaws does e-gold have?
>> 1. Someone can very easily write a script that continuosly tries to
>access an account with a bad passphrase and therefore locking any account
>perpetually.
>
>This is a feature. Good security, to keep hackers from continually trying
>passphrases until they get lucky.
Security feature, yes but also a problem that I have been the victim of myself.
>> 2. There is no way to show a third party that you've actually sent gold
>into another account. Maybe a public batchnumber system can work here.
>
>Why would you want to do this? Get the party you've sent it to, to make a
>statement.
Think of this from a Market Maker prespective. You have sent gold to somebody and
they say your haven't. If you need to prove it to a third party, like maybe the
credit card company, you can't unless you give the CC company your passphrase.
>> 3. Negative Balances!
>
>They only occur when the monthly agio fee is applied to an average balance,
>and the only entity affected in e-gold. The only alternative is to assess
>the fees on each spend, as GoldMoney does, and this is way to complicated.
>This is a feature.
The fact is that they shouldn't happen. They cause the figures in "Examiner" to not
be exact. You don't know how much gold is actually in circulation because of how
negative balances figure into the equation.
>> 4. No third party counting the gold in the storage facility.
>
>The Escrow Agent should start this soon. Hey, no one else even HAS an escrow
>agent.
If the Escrow Agent does then I have no problem with that. GoldMoney uses Euro-Dutch
Trust Company (Bahamas) Ltd. They are not an escrow agent, but from my conversations
with James Turk, they act like one.
>> 5. Absolutely no fraud prevention or resolution. PayPal may be horibble
>but they still have some kind of "Insurance" for its users. It may not be
>much.. but its something.
>
>I agree! E-Gold needs an insurance policy against hackers who raid accounts,
>like PayPal!
>
>> 6. e-gold doesn't exist. Try calling somebody who works for e-gold. It
>won't happen. You'll have to call somebody that says they work for e-gold
>but at the end of the day, they are being paid by G&SR.
>
>Why does this bother you so much? You mention it all the time!
>
This bothers me because there may be a potential problems. Who would I call if say I
needed G&SR's e-gold account frozen because of some wrong doing. It may never happen
but what if it does. What if there are certain Business aliances that I would like to
make with e-gold and not G&SR. Why do I have to give up all rights to sur G&SR to be
linked from the e-gold website?
>> 7. Sole Bailee of metal into the storage facility.
>
>Prevents fraud. Anytime you allow someone to bail gold into the system, you
>open a door for stolen gold, which would lead to counterfeit e-gold. The
>important function is to allow a third party to BAIL-OUT the gold on demand.
>This is a feature.
>
I would consider it a lot harder to send fraudulent 400oz bars of gold to the Storage
Facility then to send fraudulent USD to G&SR. If may be some kind of security
precaution but it prohibits free-market operations and promotes monopoly.
>> 8. Server located in beautiful Melbourne, Florida.
>
>Under the protection of the USA. Another feature.
>
Some consider it protection, other consider it a security risk.
>> 9. Conflict of interest for users because the people that control e-gold
>also control its sole Bailee.
>
>Why is this a problem?
>
I am in direct competition with G&SR's main service- OmniPay. People like me need
assurances that one of the Jackson brothers is not going to freeze me e-gold accounts
and deny me service because of some stupid reason like me not giving them my private
PGP keys when I left. All because I may be grabbing too much of the market from
OmniPay. Don't trust your competition :-).
>> 10. No Marketing! Relying on users to bring in merchants instead of
>getting merchants that bring in users.
>
>With growth like they've had, they wouldn't be able to handle any more. This
>is a good business decision.
Some would consider 76000 mearly funded accounts in 4 years to not be up to par in
their industry.
>> 11. Bad website design.
>
>Excellent website design!
>
Well.. I have argued this before in other emails.
>> 12. Ploy to collect a large amount of precious metals incase Y2K didn't go
>too well.. - just kidding on that one. There are several pieces of evidence
>that point to that.. but I might discuss that at a later time.
>
>No relevant.
>
Just a joke.
>> 13. Bad service.
>
>I AGREE!!!
>
>> 14. Majority of user-base is involved in "questionable" activities.
>
>The only way to remedy this is to eliminate the idea of an internet
>currency, and replace it with a payment system, like PayPal. This is an
>unfortunate aspect of the entire premise, and cannot be avoided.
>
>> 15. Infringement of patents... from what I've heard.
>
>You cannot claim an 'idea' as a patent and have it hold up in court.
>
I don't really want to argue this because of my limited knowledge in patent law.
However, I would think that if the patent was granted in the first place, there would
be a chance of it to hold up in court.
Khurram Khan
==
2 cents worth?
http://two-cents-worth.com/?135153
_____________________________________________________________
Get email for your site ---> http://www.everyone.net
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
