[e-gold-list] The offer still stands (sincerely!)

[Eric Gaither, Gaithman's E-Gold Exchange]

Craig,

   Actually, thank you for your reply.  I hope I did not appear "harsh" or
"conceited"  as I do appreciate your offering suggestions.  Sometimes I

reply a "little to quickly" and my replies are often mistaken for criticisms
or insult.  To the contrary, I just enjoy engaging in a good debate!

    You are sooo right about things not working in their current state.  I
personally have been hit for close to $18 K in bad checks (not counting the
ones I never even bothered to deposit) this MONTH alone.  These were from
people in the US, all the details panned out (banks verified funds
available, addresses, so on) but they turned out to be counterfeits of
legitimates.  My point being for every method we come up with to verify a
payment or endorser, scammers then sidestep and move on.

     It is currently impossible to know all of our endorsers.  We must rely
on "fresh blood" coming into the system to grow the Gold Economy.  If you
think about it, I believe there are currently less than 100,000 funded
active e-gold accounts.  That is a drop in the bucket compared to the global
economy with fiat currency, yes?  Now, the trick is to convert the rest of
"old economy" (fiat users) into converting into the Gold Economy (bullion
users).  To do so, we must accept their currency (checks, money orders,
credit cards, etc.) to issue them gold currency.  Since no one has a method
to verify these masses in a  *cost effective* manner, we have to engage in a
huge amount of trust/risk.  Identification verification scares off a certain
amount of scammers.  Therefore, less risk.  Less risk then equals improved
efficiency in converting to the Gold Economy.  Improved efficiency then
means a faster growing Gold Economy with a better *trust model* as the Gold
Economy payments are non-reputable.You then do not need to know your
endorser as there payments are ALWAYS good or they cannot pay.   We must
find a way to build that trust at the start instead of waiting until the
end.  Does that make sense?  And yes, your right, it does not appear anyone
is working on solving that at the moment.  I personally am too busy with the
currency conversion.  Therefore, I rely on ID verification (again, mostly
just to scare off the undesirables) until something else comes along.

> Let me say that I appreciate your sarcasm and the "put up or shut up"
> offer.  And it is likely deserved; especially from the point of view of
> someone "in the trenches".

     Again, I did not mean to be so blunt, but yes, I am in the trenches and
my enemies (hackers, thieves, counterfeiters, etc.) are a massive force to
fight in such a battle.  It is not unlike WW II.  The Allies tried to rely
on the "gentleman's war" tactics:  bullets, tanks, bombs, grenades and sheer
numbers.  Axis powers used mustard gas, ethnogenocide, starvation.  We
Market Makers (I like to think) try to uphold certain principals and values
while still engaging in this war.  Our opposing forces just meet those
tactics with something more brutal at every turn.  It seems something of an
"atom bomb" type influence will be needed to rid us of these types
(scammers, thieves, counterfeiters) once and for all.

      Problem with that? Symbolically the atom bomb was the opening of the
Cold War.  See where I am going with this? Technology that is so powerful
usually becomes destructive by the sheer nature of the fear it then instills
in the side without the technology which then races to create something of
equal or more strength.  If we create a method to verify all endorsers *cost
effectively* and quickly, that means we can id someone, anyone, anywhere,
rather quickly.  Imagine the fear such technology would spread.  Look at all
the postings on this list ALONE from people who fear giving out their SS #.
Such technology would ultimately lead someone to create opposing technology
for those who DO NOT want to be able to be identified so easily.

     I guess what is needed is the best of both worlds.  A method to verify
someone is "trustworthy" when making payment without needing to know *who
they are* in a sense.  The e-gold system does that partially.  A payment can
only be made if it is backed by the appropriate gold stores.  However,
e-gold is now rampant with thieves, counterfeiters, and hackers who have
obtained their gold stores illegally.  The trust is then gone. Sure the
payment is "good" at the moment, but it ultimately cost someone (Market
Makers, G&SR, fellow e-gold users) a great deal because the gold was stolen
from them.  Back to square one, yes?

    Please consider my offer in your spare time.  I am always looking for a
better, faster, cheaper way to work.  If you have some thoughts, please
share.  If they work, I will share the returns with you.  Together we can
make this a better system I am confident of that.

    Have a great New Years, Craig, and I wish you health and fortune in the
very near future!

    With Great Respect,

     Eric



----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 11:54 AM
Subject: Thanks for the offer


> Eric,
>
> I got your message but most likely it was sent to me and not the list.
> Not
> realizing, this I deleted it off my system before I replied.  So I
> cannot
> reply in specific terms.
>
> Let me say that I appreciate your sarcasm and the "put up or shut up"
> offer.  And it is likely deserved; especially from the point of view of
> someone "in the trenches".
>
> I understand that you and SC are in a situation where you need to do
> something and you can't think of anything other than the contemporary
> business practices.  But I argue that these practices are destructive
> dead ends and if anything good is to come it must be by other means.
>
> I was as constructive as I was able to be: giving you several examples
> of the kinds of methods and thinking that IMO hold promise.  Your
> problems are not really new.  In their essence they are the same as
> those that business had 100 years ago when they were solved by
> non-statist
> means; looking to the past may be a fruitful source of ideas that can
> be adapted to the present.  And new technology has made possible other
> options.  I tried to clarify the real nature of the problem and jog you
> out of your mental rut of statist thinking.
>
> But I NEVER said it would be easy (I have been thinking on these
> problems
> for my whole life) and, sadly, I have little more to offer.  If there is
> to be any hope for the future I have to assume that they can be rightly
> solved.  But I am probably not going to be the one to do it for you much
> tho I would like to help.
>
> Best,
>
> CCS
>

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]