Kind regards, > presenting this case for discussion, and would like to identify these > problems: > > 1) It's ineffective. > 2) It's prone to error. > Allowing sellers to identify themselves ahead of time is an > excellent step
> users to fund their accounts and become accustomed to their use, > beforesubjecting them to scrutiny. Craig, You are quite right and raise some extremely valid points. I presented over a year ago (has it been that long!) a concept when there was only e-gold and osgold operating but was largely ignored by the DGCs at that time. I will present it again as a solution that would reduce the amont of this type by a large percentage. DGC accounts should be of three types and these types should be clearly marked so spenders to these accounts can see in advance to whom they are spending. Type A) is the existing account which is largely annonymous requiring the minimal of identification and which the scammers rely upon so much. This is for those people that are keen to be annonymous and a flag of some sort can be assigned when you go to spend to the account. Say an 'A' account e.g A23456 Type B) A verified account. This is the type of account a merchant might set up. But also an individual. The account holder would need to submit verifiable ID to the DGC in order to have such an account. This would make them accountable and traceable for the account. This type of account would also be flagged. Account holders could advertise this also. "Our account is flagged 'M' or whatever. A useful advetising tool using trust. E.g B23456 Type c) A Marker Makers or exchange provders account. Again this would only be set up with proper Identification provided to the DGC and also flagged. E.g M23456 If you decide to spend to an A type account it is at your own risk. All current accounts with the DGCs are currently A type of accounts. Spending to a B or M type of account would be done with more confidence as one would know that such accounts are bona fide and require a more strenuous validation of the account holder in order to qualify for such an account. The addition of B & M Type of accounts may not decrease the scamming attempts but they would be confined or reduced to the type A accounts and people would be more wary and, in a sense forwarned. Besides which implementing such a system would also demonstrate to the world and prospective clients that active action is being taken to reduce incidence of scamming within the gold economy. I am sure, with their experience and capability, the DGCs could improve markedly in the concept above, perhaps various types of accounts. Technically I feel it is not an insurmountable task to put such a system in place. I wonder who would be the first to take it on board? [EMAIL PROTECTED] A Member of the Gaithman Group of Companies An Accredited Founding Member of the eCurrency Trade Association Inc http://www.gold-today.com "Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have." - Margaret Mead --------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you like to receive faxes to your personal email address? You can with mBox. Visit http://www.mbox.com.au/fax --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
