"R. A. Hettinga" wrote:
>
> At 12:20 AM -0400 on 5/25/01, CCS wrote:
>
> > this was not exactly true. The cryptocraphic protocols of digital
> > bearer instruments certainly make them more secure but there still
> > is vulnerability due to the need for communication with a central
> > clearing mechanism.
>
> Actually, the double spend database doesn't have to be centralized.
Yes, I think you are right. For sometime I have been thinking about
ways
to do this. For example by posting encrypted endorsement notices to a
dedicated newsgroup. However, such means seem to require the creation
of suitable infrastructure which might be difficult and to introduce
settlement delays and problems which could be prohibitive.
Do you have any better ideas?
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
