This is where I've got to say something. I would much rather see a system
where the owners of accounts CAN BE identified if necessary. Otherwise, your
customer base will contain a large number of thieves, and make it difficult
for your market makers to function.
e-gold should not require
It would be very nice if there were a legal way to have freedom
and privacy and be left alone in peace. But it is self-delusion
to imagine that this is possible. As you say, these "things are
not respected or valued by the system". Any laws currently
consistent with these values are
I think what we are all getting at is that no one cares who you are if
you pay, provide a service, or ship product on time. If you break a
'contract' we want a way to get you to honor the contract, or refund us,
or failing that lower your reputation to warn your customers (maybe a
little
I think what we are all getting at is that no one cares who you are if
you pay, provide a service, or ship product on time. If you break a
'contract' we want a way to get you to honor the contract, or refund us,
or failing that lower your reputation to warn your customers (maybe a
little
E-Gold needs to identify account owners too. I don't know if they
plan to do this, but I would like to see some sort of 'low balance
limit' on accounts whose owners cannot be identified with certainty.
That would be the END of e-gold.
Why?
Craig
Because the value of e-gold
E-Gold needs to identify account owners too. I don't know if they
plan to do this, but I would like to see some sort of 'low balance
limit' on accounts whose owners cannot be identified with certainty.
That would be the END of e-gold.
Why?
Because the value of e-gold
Fact is, any method of payment to an MM (besides cash in hand) leaves
a trail back to the payer. Even an "anonymous" reputation system that
allowed me to accept a CC or cheque from someone without knowing his
identity, would result in the banking transactions revealing his
identity to me, so
Sidd wrote:
BUT, anyone who has a credit card or cheque account is already deeply
ensconced in the "system" and is obviously not TOO concerned about
privacy anyway.
Not so (in my case anyway). I went around and around with my bank about the SS#
illegal requirement. The bank is bound by
Message -
From: Goldfinger Coin and Bullion Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: SR Identity
Fact is, any method of payment to an MM (besides cash in hand) leaves
a trail back to the payer. Even
Dale wrote:
Not so (in my case anyway). I went around and around with my bank
about the SS#
illegal requirement. The bank is bound by their contract with the FED
system to
acquire the SS# or they are fined as per their private contract.
Eventually I
relented because I needed to conduct business -
Boyd wrote:
It can also work in the reverse, I want to sell, the MM deposits cash
to my acct, I spend the egold to his.
It does take a leaf of faith the first time this is done, or maybe
even the first 2 or 3 times ...
Not for much longer... watch this space...
Sidd.
---
You are currently
At 8:48 PM -0500 12/30/00, B Ray wrote:
http://www.yoursolutions.net/goldrush/
I musyt say that's a good, SIMPLE, sensible looking xchange provider
(I have absolutely no idea who's running it, if it's a crooked one,
or whatever! :) )
Thank god for simple, clear instructions.
Whoever is
--Original Message--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 31, 2000 1:59:06 AM GMT
Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: SR Identity
At 8:48 PM -0500 12/30/00, B Ray wrote:
http://www.yoursolutions.net/goldrush/
I musyt say that's a good, SIMPLE, sensible
At 07:45 PM 12/29/2000 -0500, CCS wrote:
I also suggest that SR would be better served by firing their
verification service and devising a real way to accomplish their
actual objective that is compatible with the interests of their
potential customers.
Any suggestions? We have been searching
14 matches
Mail list logo
