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

Re: A problem with anonymity

TC> Oh, I agree, of course. Except that the escrow agent need not be a
TC> "nonymous" agent, to use Monty's terminology here.

  Sorry, my Greek is rusty.  Shoulda been "onymous", I suppose.

  But if the escrow agent is anonymous, we simply recurse, moving now to
the question of whether anyone can trust the Anonymous Escrow Agency not
to take the money and run.

TC> (I mention banks because, when you look at it closely, today's banks can
TC> quite easily claim that a customer made a withdrawal when he didn't. That
TC> they don't says more about the nature of persistent businesses than about
TC> any government oversight or security features. This is a side point, but it
TC> bears keeping in mind that the real world of banks and businesses, etc., is
TC> not fully secure, either. And yet it mostly works pretty well. The reasons
TC> for this are interesting to consider.)

  A bank has $$ invested in impressive-looking buildings, (so that
vanishing into the ether and setting up shop elsewhere is rather
difficult) and several officers whose TrueNames are registered with the
appropriate agencies, so that they may be sued if they pull this

  While individual stockholders might appreciate the anonymity (and
protection from legal action) of owning stock in a bank or escrow agency
(might just combine the functions, while we're at it), they demand
onymity of the officers with whom they entrust the keys to the

 * [email protected] *