> From: Danny Van den Berghe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi all,
> I would like to report to you what has happened to me, because I think
> this is a
> precedent with dangerous implications for all of us.
>
[...]
>
> What is e-gold going to do about this?
> Clearly the system is not safe. Non-repudiable payment is now a joke,
it
> is
> simply rejected by the court.
> Somebody wants his money back, he can go to the Minesota court and say
the
> payment was made by mistake:
> account is ordered frozen without any questions asked.
> If the victim lives outside the USA he can perhaps not afford to pay
an
> attorney
> in the USA to fight the case...
> It becomes a complete mess...
I deeply sympathize. This is the kind of thing you never ask
for!
After explaining the predicament you suggest fixing the defacto
repudiability of e-gold by just running with it: make it repudiable by
policy as well as by fact.
The truth is that all book-entry accounting systems such as
e-gold can be non-repudiable by policy and preference only. Software
problems, court orders, etc. can all interfere with non-repudiation if
assets are stored in accounts.
My preference for solving this repudiation problem is to go all
the way: use a bearer instrument system which, since users' assets are
not stored in user-specific accounts, cannot be individually frozen,
retracted, or repudiated.
The Lucrative project, http://lucrative.thirdhost.com/, offers a
software suite with just this characteristic.
There are important reasons for people to be able to 'take back
their money' - but I think that mechanism it should be outside the asset
storage and transfer system, where it can be isolated and perfected on
its own.
Patrick
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s)
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common
viruses.
