Re: IMP (was Re: ecash-info (fwd))

[rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga)]

Tim, if you pat me on the head any more you're likely to get fleas...

The point of my post was to discuss the merits of a proposition. That is,
WWW/Mosaic is at least a prima facie (seems like a good idea), if not de
facto (they say it works) Internet Mercantile Protocol.  *If* that's the
case, then what would be proper the action to make it happen quicker.

*If* it is possible to send money through the internet *and* receive
something in return (probably nettable.stuff like software, information,
maybe bandwidth?), *then* you have an IMP.  I think Chaum's innocent until
proven guilty.  I used the words de facto in the existential, and not the
universal, sense. I could not possibly mean everyone's using it, in light
of the fact that he just announced the stuff!

>In the interests of brevity, I'll make my points without quoting
>Robert Hettinga's article.
>
>1. Like I said a couple of times, no flaming was intended. I was only
>urging what I ordinarily urge, that super-enthusiastic newcomers get

[charitable discussion of enthusiastic newcomers running about the house in
muddy boots, silly rah-rah (;-)) cheerleading behavior for people who don't
even read c'punks, and "if I were you, young man" instructions in proper
norms for a c'punk, etc.]

>It is also remotely possible that a Zimmermann-like person (or group)
>may develop a PGDC scheme. Maybe. But PGP took PRZ a lot of time, and
>that of the v 2.0 crew that helped (many of them on this List!), and
>hence it may not be too likely for a while.

This is where I think you're fighting the last (of several) wars.  I was
*not* trying to find out if anyone around here wanted to work for free.  I
was looking for a "snicker test" of the concept that WWW/Digicash might be
an IMP, so that folks like myself could do something to make it happen if
it is. Forthwith, I hereby promise *never* to ask someone on this list to
work for free. (I'll probably regret that ;-)).

>(Also, absent banks that
>will honor PGDC--though some efforts may change this--the challenge
>will be enormous. And straight encryption is vastly more
>understandable, conceptually and practically, than digital cash
>protocols.)

This is the first kernal of tenable argument in all the chaff of (face it,
Tim) condesention, and I agree with it.  I think getting banks - or other
people who convert money from one form to another - interested in digital
cash is something someone who doesn't code for a living could do. Points
like this were what I was looking for. Now that it can be done (as Chaum
has claimed to have demonstrated), then someone with more guts than brains
won't get laughed out of the office in the first round of due dilligence.

>
>7. The "voice encryption" is probably more important right now, and
>much "easier" to implement. It also can be done by independent groups...

[much sage advice about getting people to work for free on appropriate,
scalable projects, scarce c'punk resources, and herding cats]

>> I figure that somebody acted. Somebody wrote code. Is it shipping? I have a
>> product I'm dying to sell this way right now.
>
>It will likely be at least a few years, in my estimation, before
>enought peopole are using this so as to create a market. Meanwhile,
>sell your product the normal way...unless the privacy/anonymity issues
>are critical, why wait?

I'm not so sure here. If the market is for stuff like software and
information, and if the only proprietary market opportunity is at the
currency exchange level, then if a credible, (and legal) currency exchange
function is implemented on the internet, and we have a working Internet
Mercantile Protocol.  Lots of "ifs" in that line of reasoning, but they're
not hysterically unrealistic.

>>.... As it is, I feel like Garth and/or Wayne.  "I'm not worthy!,
>> I'm not worthy!" I really didn't want get into it with Tim May of all
>> people...
>>
>> How many lawns do I have to mow to pay for the window, mister? ;-).
>>
>
>Just read the articles. You don't have to be a number theory expert,
>debating birthday paradoxes with Eli Brandt, Hal Finney, Jay PP, Eric
>Hughes, and the other number theory savvy folks, but some overall . . .

[watch out for the fleas, Tim]

Happy Scratching,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga  (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone
Shipwright Development Corporation     who eats too little and sees Heaven and
44 Farquhar Street                       someone who drinks too much and sees
Boston, MA 02331 USA                       snakes." -- Bertrand Russell
(617) 323-7923