I wrote:
> > Given the possible uses for anonymous e-cash, the risk that e-gold would
do
> > something unpleasant to the anonymous mint account seems unreasonably
> > large, at least until e-gold formalizes its policies in this regard
and Anonymous responded:
> The anonymous mint would be an indirect mechanism for e-gold account
> transfers. Account holder Alice transfers into the mint account,
> and later unlinkably directs the mint to transfer into Bob's account.
> In the worst case, suppose Alice and Bob are criminals. Hopefully e-gold
> would direct their ire at the wrongdoers, and not try to freeze everyone's
> account who did business with them.
My reaction to this proposal amounts to a question about the prudence of
relying on such a hope. To date, and based upon scanty information, it
appears that e-gold worries about whether accounts are in some vague and
unspecified fashion associated with crime. I don't think it's safe to hope,
or assume, that an account e-gold suspects of being used by criminals would
be safe merely because the criminal use was untraceable and unproveable.
E-gold has not released, to my knowledge, any policy on the degree of
certainty they need before they start mucking with accounts. I'm not sure
they've even thought this issue out or actually have a fixed policy. Would
they freeze accounts on mere suspicion, even if the actual criminality is
mathematically impossible to prove? Until they say they wouldn't, I think
we have to assume they would, given recent events and utterances.
> Apparently, strong anonymity is explicitly NOT a design goal of the
> forthcoming DigiGold project, in fact the people involved get downright
> touchy when you try to talk to them about blinded transfers. Furthermore
> the proposed anonymous ecash layer would be a competitor with DigiGold,
> which is closely affiliated with e-gold (e-gold affiliated companies
> spawn faster than rabbits).
They do indeed! Hopefully to the confusion of their enemies, certainly to
the confusion of me. Anyway, you clearly know more about the DigiGold
project than I do -- thanks for the information. I admit I only poorly
understand what little has been publicly said about DigiGold.
People smarter than me have pointed out that there are only two ways
anonymous ecash can be implemented without being quickly and brutally
quashed by government: Either be so stealthy you have no points of attack
or be so efficient and so valuable that government can't kill you without
killing the economy.
In this thread we are talking about the first approach. (Hettinga is all
over the second approach, and I wish him well while reserving some doubts.)
Lots of smart people have worked on the problem, but I haven't seen a
solution yet. Your proposal doesn't work because the e-gold mint account
remains a point of attack, and the e-gold guys don't have a policy yet that
tells us how far you can go in using that account before they will freeze it
and do unspecified unspeakable things to it.
I retain some hope that, as non-anonymous electronic payment systems become
more widespread and feature-rich, somebody will find a way to piggyback an
anonymous ecash system onto non-anonymous systems, in such a way that it's
very hard to attack the anonymous system. More layers will help, at least
in a security-through-obscurity kinda way, especially if we get to where
there are so many middlemen involved that each can plausibly avoid
prosecution by pointing the finger elsewhere. (This has synergies with the
Hettinga approach; if somebody devises some ingenious 19-layer e-cash onion
routing system involving 19 different electronic payment systems, the
non-anonymous "legitimate" uses of those systems will make it hard to
threaten them with shut-down, just as the economic importance of the
internet itself makes a mockery of government efforts to put the genie back
in the bottle.)
My gut sense is that Digigold won't get us all the way there, but I'm hoping
it's a small step in the right direction just as e-gold was.
-- Daniel
=======================================================
The Law Office of Daniel J. Boone
704 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 723-9902
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe when the
legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon Tucker
=======================================================
