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

Re: Why emoney? Why not a web of debt?

Subject: Re: Why emoney? Why not a web of debt?
From: [email protected] (Q Mixmaster Remailer)
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 14:07:32 -0800
Apparently-To: [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected]
Comment1: This message did not originate from the
Comment2: above address. It was automatically remailed
Comment3: by an anonymous mail service. Please report
Comment4: problems or inappropriate use to
Comment5: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> ([email protected])
Sender: [email protected]

> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 15:18:48 +1300
> From: [email protected] (David Murray)
> 
> But of course, since ecash is worth only what you can get for it, the web of
> trust model, since it reflects what people will give for it, seems to
> reflect that underlying value much better.

  Oh... Nice...  I hadn't thought of that...

> The best way to underpin the value of ecash is for the issuer to (credibly)
> undertake to convert it into real money.

  And since I would only make the promise to the few people that I am
connected to in the debt-trust web, this is doable.  I doubt I could
convince all of you that I was good for $10, but I bet there are a few
readers on this list that I *could* convince.  They would be able to
convince a few others that _they_ are worth $10, etc.

  This system might even dodge the laws governing banking in various
jurisdictions ... though I doubt it.  It quacks, waddles, and water
runs off its back...

  Noyb

References:
- Re: Why emoney? Why not a web of debt?
  - From: [email protected] (David Murray)

Prev by Date: AA BBS report
Next by Date: Re: Remailers-in-a-box
Prev by thread: Re: Why emoney? Why not a web of debt?
Next by thread: Re: Why emoney? Why not a web of debt?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread