Steve takes an issue with me for my belief that anonymous payments will involve
overhead that may make them less popular than non-anonymous payments. He says,
> There is no reason to expect anonymous system will be more expensive than
> the current book-entry variety, in fact quite the contrary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 10:12 AM +0300 on 9/27/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One small final comment: physical cash is not really anonymous (bills
> have serial numbers, and certainly coins may contain secret marks. Why?
To prevent forgery, of course.
Blinding, statistical tes
One of the things provided by X9.59 is that it is privacy/anonymous neutral at
point-of-sale &/or merchant webserver ... and in fact, with AADS accounts for
hardgood shipments ... an X9.59-like protocol for address-authorization
transaction... similar to X9.59 for payment-authorization ... not o
--- begin forwarded text
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:01:05 +0100
From: Somebody
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IBM to built crypto-on-a-chip into all its PCs
Posted 27/09/99 12:09pm by Tony Smith
IBM to built crypto-on-a-chip into all its PCs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-12
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One small final comment: physical cash is not really anonymous (bills have
> serial numbers, and certainly coins may contain secret marks. Why?
I believe at least part of the reason is to make heists difficult - Places
which have loads of nice new
See http://lavarand.sgi.com/
John
Anonymous wrote:
> There is a wide variation in the amount of validation done at polling
> places. In the local region none of this is done; you are asked to sign,
> bug your signature is not checked. No ID is required, and observers
> from political parties are not present.
In California, t
