At 8:55 PM -0800 3/30/02, Tim May wrote:
I've seen no convincing arguments from the E-gold enthusiasts that
E-gold is anything more than magical thinking.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe E-gold has ever claimed
anonymity. But as a bailee, which is what they do advertise being,
Any comments?
1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF.
(Diversified Metal Products v.
IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report
94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization
Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)
2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Trei, Peter wrote:
So, yes, at the moment they can't scan your wallet very easily. But
this technology is developing as all others are. I don't know about
dealing with many similar tags more or less simultaneously, but some
of the discussed apps for stock tracking
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Adam Back wrote:
You don't need the minter's secret key to identify the double-spender.
Anyone who happens to see two coin transcripts answering different
challenges with the same coin private key can recover all the
attributes of the coin, including the identity
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Eugen Leitl wrote:
The tags are passive. All tags (whether inductive or electrostatic) must
be energized from the outside. The pumping energy can be shielded, as can
the RF emission of the tags itself. The environment is noisy. The tags
send simultaneously from the
Michael Motyka[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 10:54 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:
Putting RF Tags in cash is one of those ideas with Unintended
Consequences.
Muggers would love having a way of determining which victims are
carrying a
Tim May writes:
I'll go back to lurking, as this thread, so to speak, is not
interesting to me.
(More interesting is reading Chris Hillman's page with his Categorical
Primer on it, http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/papers.html. And
to BL and JA, I downloaded O'CAML and picked up a
Trei, Peter wrote:
Michael Motyka[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 10:54 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:
Putting RF Tags in cash is one of those ideas with Unintended
Consequences.
Muggers would love having a way of determining which
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Tim May wrote:
The engineers of such SmartWallets will not give them more range than
the protocol needs. Extra range costs money. If Alice is expected to
insert her Smart Wallet into a receptacle (for security, if for nothing
else), initiating the protocol from several
--
From: Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 09:27 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:
For paper money failure rates will probably
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 11:22 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:
The argument against shielding is that it is obnoxious that I
(or anyone) should have to go even further than I already do to
maintain even a fraction of the privacy which was naturally available to
every person 150 years ago.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:22:04PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
| If a stack of bills containing these transponders are supposed to be
| read from afar, way beyond what a valid bill detector is likely to be
| engineered to do, I'd like to see the physics worked out.
|
| Detection range turns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim wrote:
Everytime I comment on your citations, you go into a snit about how
Gramps is insulting the whippersnappers.
No, it's all about the condescending tone you take when you use your many
years of experience as leverage against anyone who
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:59:32AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
| On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 09:27 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:
| For paper money failure rates will probably be high anyway.
| So, if in fact we _are_ talking about each $20 bill having such a
| transponder, then why are our arguments
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Tim May wrote:
So, if in fact we _are_ talking about each $20 bill having such a
transponder, then why are our arguments about how easy it will be to
shield against remote probing not valid?
Because the economics do not work. People simply aren't
knowledgeable/interested
Peter Gutmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] previously stated:
Being in the US and having to handle wads of tattered, grubby $1 notes,
many of which wouldn't be accepted by vending machines because of their
condition or weren't the sort of thing you'd
want to touch just before you ate the food you'd
I've had several dozen of these (stamp and other vending machines provided
them as change here in NYC), and kept only one. They're horrible. Sure,
they look like gold when you get them but they oxidize quickly when
handled and look worse than old pennies.
Serves the mint right for trying to
On 10 Apr 2002 at 13:43, Sunder wrote:
I've had several dozen of these (stamp and other vending machines provided
them as change here in NYC), and kept only one.
You're not supposed to keep currency, you're supposed to spend it.
I generally prefer the bills to coins, because the coins make
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:47:51PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote:
In the smart card setting with Brands protocols there is a host
computer (eg pda, laptop, mobile-phone main processor, desktop) and a
tamper-resistant smart-card which computes part of the coin transfer
and prevents
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 12:25 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Tim May wrote:
(A stack of bills, or cards, will have extremely poor radiation
patterns
from any but the top or bottom bill, and probably their patterns won't
be good either.)
How come? True, if a bill
30 seconds in a microwave on high, stir and rotate tray...
-Original Message-
From: Michael Motyka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 8:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, April 9,
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Adam Back wrote:
Is there anything specific PKILAB have said about Brands certs?
No, it was early in the set up when it was discussed. Sounds like
they want to at least listen to him :-)
btw I did a google search for PKILAB and Brands to see if I could find
anything
How do we trust bits to represent money? Someone asked this (Mike
Rosing, I think it was).
I argue that the question is, as stated, not well-grounded at this time.
No one is asking for bits to be trusted, from first principles, absent
real products and a real embedding in a financial system.
23 matches
Mail list logo
