[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


>From [email protected] Sun Aug 22 20:06:38 1993
>To: [email protected] (Paul L. Moses)
>Subject: [[email protected] (Paul L. Moses): Digicash....I think]
>Date: Sun, 22 Aug 93 17:06:29 -0700
>From: [email protected]
>Mail to owner-cypherpunks goes to the bounce box, where it gets looked
>at occasionally.  Mail to [email protected] to send to the whole list.
>------- Forwarded Message
>Return-Path: [email protected]
>Received: from emoryu1.cc.emory.edu ([]) by toad.com id AA06687; Fri, 20 Aug 93 19:36:07 PDT
>Received: by
>	emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_cc.3.4.6) via MAILPROG
>	id AA19400 ; Fri, 20 Aug 93 23:49:26 -0400
>Return-Path: [email protected]
>Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 23:49:26 -0400
>From: [email protected] (Paul L. Moses)
>Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Digicash....I think
>I hesitate to mention this, since I have *NO* idea of any of the mathematics
>behind the digicash articles you all have mention....BUT...
>I was out running errands today and used my ATM card for a cash purchase.
>This led me to think, aha, I could simply get this card "charged" every
>so often with another denomination ($20, $50, $200, $2000, whatever) and
>go around spending my money without the Store having to phone in the transaction.  This raises a couple of thought in my mind, namely
>	1)  Reverse the function of current ATM units, ie use them to 
>"charge" (as in, activate, add money to) the BANK CARD, rather than the 
>opposite that we do now...
>	2)  Find some way to ensure that the card itself does not contain
>an identifier, so that the user is not recorded during the transaction.
>	3)  The card then becomes a bearer instrument of sorts.  No big deal;
>IT'S JUST LIKE MONEY.  People have to be careful with money, so they ought
>to be careful with these things too.  You could still probably use PIN #s
>(personal code), since they're pretty generic and can be selected and
>changed by the end user himself....whoops no, on second thought, not unless
>the user can encode the PIN himself.  Hmm.  I dunno.  PIN could be OK as long
>as it was never recorded in the transaction, but there's the danger of the
>transaction program taking a look surreptitiously...
>	4) Digicash exists already.  I buy a copy card at the library and
>put money onto it, then use it at will in the copy machines.  If I lose the
>card, I'm outta luck, cos anyone who finds it can use it.  Primitive, single
>function, but basically what this is about, I think?
>So, what I'm trying to say is that it is possible now to do this, without
>any huge breakthrough or legal innovations.  If I have missed something obvious,
>please enlighten me (gently!).
>- -Paul
>------- End of Forwarded Message