From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't this what I said?
Yes, I agreed with you with regard to the law as it is in the UK. I
corrected my mistake.
Mark
On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 03:23 AM, Marcel Popescu wrote:
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark cited the Bank of England, not U.S. law. I don't know what
British
law is in this regard.
It does appear that the law in England is not as demanding as I
believed:
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark cited the Bank of England, not U.S. law. I don't know what British
law is in this regard.
It does appear that the law in England is not as demanding as I believed:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/legaltender.htm
The concept of legal tender is
On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 03:23 AM, Marcel Popescu wrote:
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark cited the Bank of England, not U.S. law. I don't know what
British
law is in this regard.
It does appear that the law in England is not as demanding as I
believed:
Marcel Popescu wrote:
It does appear that the law in England is not as demanding as I believed:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/legaltender.htm
The concept of legal tender is often misunderstood. Contrary to popular
opinion, legal tender is not a means of payment that must be
Errata: companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment is, of
course, companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment.
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Marcel Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason the IOUs emitted by the Bank of England were *initially*
accepted
was
At 06:19 PM 12/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Errata: companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment is, of
course, companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment.
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Marcel Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason the IOUs emitted by the Bank of
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 09:26 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 06:19 PM 12/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Errata: companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment is,
of
course, companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment.
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Marcel
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim May wrote:
[At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ... well,
it's obvious what the instead of ought to be.]
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nearly all forms of money are more like IOUs than any other single
description.
Right.
With British money it is the Bank of England (so I hear,
but maybe it has changed to some sort of U.K. reference) that says
Anyone who presents this IOU for 10 pounds will
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim May wrote:
[At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ... well,
it's obvious what the instead of ought to be.]
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother
[At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ... well,
it's obvious what the instead of ought to be.]
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
OK, suppose we've got a bank that
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:31 AM, Tim May wrote:
Swiss banks could take in and dispense from accounts without any
identity credentials (the passwords and equivalents to signatures and
chop marks) because of this basic point about Bayesian probability.
Swiss banks were not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 10:31 AM -0800 on 12/5/02, Tim May wrote:
[At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ...
well, it's obvious what the instead of ought to be.]
:-).
There
[At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ... well,
it's obvious what the instead of ought to be.]
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
OK, suppose we've got a bank that
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:31 AM, Tim May wrote:
Swiss banks could take in and dispense from accounts without any
identity credentials (the passwords and equivalents to signatures and
chop marks) because of this basic point about Bayesian probability.
Swiss banks were not
16 matches
Mail list logo
