[e-gold-list] Re: e-Bullion is online
On 7 Jul 2001, at 0:41, Viking Coder wrote: > It looks like to be a very promising new addition to the ranks of real > GBCs. There is only 1 issue that I have with their service - their > transaction fee. They charge a flat transaction fee of 50 US cents. So true. Have you found the definition of e-bullion and what is the unit of account...? I also find that the corporate governance is weak and appears to rely only on the good reputation on long time in business of Goldfingercoin. There is obviously a strong connection between Goldfingercoin, the sole exchange provider and e-bullion. Still this is very serious stuff. P.S. There debit card looks sharp! --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: e-Bullion is online
> I notice that the e-Bullion site has opened for business. > http://www.e-bullion.com/ > It looks like to be a very promising new addition to the ranks of real GBCs. There is only 1 issue that I have with their service - their transaction fee. They charge a flat transaction fee of 50 US cents. This makes them highly unsuitable for micro transactions (http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] e-bullion
e-bullion is now open for business and at first sight, this is very serious entry in the GBC area. That is great. Good competition is always stimulating. More later. Claude http://www.goldcurrencies.ca http://www.ormetal.com == Claude Cormier Public Key http://www.ormetal.com/PGPkey.html == --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: bamdex volume / next, the S&P or Nasdaq contract
>>S&P -- or Nasdaq? > >NASDAQ is more fun. > >Tristan thats one vote for Nasdaq and one for S&P ! --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Digigold vs Systemics
>> There is an article about the Digigold vs Systemics dispute on Wired. >> It also contains brief parts about Charles Evans, Gold-Age and EE-Biz. >> >> http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44967,00.html > >Written by our good ole friend, Declan. He seems to be finally figuring >out what e-gold is actually about. > Speaking with the bloke, he certainly seems to understand e-gold fine; and this was a couple years ago. I think as a reported the man just has a (correct) healthy scepticism of everything. That is the natural and correct posture for reporters. Reporters dont' (usually) (unfortunately!) just politely print the Press Release view of things -- this is can be disappointing :) > >Viking Coder > >Worth Two Cents? >http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] e-Bullion is online
I notice that the e-Bullion site has opened for business. http://www.e-bullion.com/ Dave Brooks Bricks of Gold [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Julian Morrison wrote: > > Craig Spencer wrote: > > > > Julian Morrison wrote: > > > > > a) If you do business with unidentified people, you can be dragged into > > > their crimes, you can be swindled, and you can help crime in general > > > prosper. > > > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is > > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the > > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes > > with some perfectly legitimate business. > Oops, forgot to finish this para. Identification is a problem if it drags you into their mess. Them being a criminal is a separate problem, and one that can quite possibly be left to law enforcement and old fashioned detective skills or "stings" to prevent. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Dale Pond wrote: > > Craig Spencer wrote: > > > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is > > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the > > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes > > with some perfectly legitimate business. > > > A broader view encompasses the definition of "crime" and "criminal". > > And who is in charge of interpreting those definitions. Solution: use a purely selfish definition. A criminal is someone who causes an MM problems: by fraud, by nonpayment, by dragging them into external legal trouble, etc etc. Plus a criminal is a scammer, as every MM has a vested interest in pushing scammers out of the system - they give the system a bad name and scare off other more legit users. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Craig Spencer wrote: > > Julian Morrison wrote: > > > a) If you do business with unidentified people, you can be dragged into > > their crimes, you can be swindled, and you can help crime in general > > prosper. > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes > with some perfectly legitimate business. > > The main problem with (a) assuming you're smart enough not to buy into a > > scam is that of unidirectional anonymity. They know and can tell that > > they dealt with you; you don't know them from Adam. > > I don't see why unidirectional anonymity *per se* is a problem. Unless > you mean it allows the innocent, identified party to be scapegoated for > the crimes of the unknown. ??? Exactly. They can drag you into their mess, you can't see them beforehand and avoid the problem. Then the cops come knocking at *your* door, come to take away your servers as evidence and to ask you all sorts of irritating questions. > > [... automated double-blind MM ...] > > That would be a good business. But I don't see it as addressing the > crime problem. It's one half of the possible solution: near-perfect "money laundering". The only people with any records of the transaction per se are e-gold, and the two parties. You just matched them up via some double-blind system that prevents you from having the opportunity to log anything that could incriminate you. Much like Hushmail's concept. > I think this is a good and promising idea. But I am not sure it is a > complete solution. It would have to be tried and its consequences > observed. > > [... path server suggeston ...] > > I find the potential in this very promising. But how effective this > method actually would be can only only be discovered by trying it. Hmm. A good trust provider would be doing most if not all of that, plus tracking user ratings and comments a-la ebay, but it would have to be designed to be less tediously technical in day-to-day use. A good quality reputation system could be set up perhaps rather similar to e-gold's spend system: to log them in you hand them over to the reputation provider with some details (who you are, what you want them qualified for, etc), they handle the authentication, and pass the user back across plus their pseudonym and rep rating. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Defense Fund
The Defense Fund currently stands at: e-metalWeight (oz. troy) Equiv. grams Current Value* in US Gold 1.564094 48.6488 415.58 Kind regards, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gold-today.com Sign up with e-gold today and get grams of e-gold here. https://www.e-gold.com/newacct/newaccount.asp?cid=129542 Sign up with osgold and get an osgold account today http://www.osgold.com/index.php?id=1008 subscribe to the gold-today discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goldtoday --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] GOLDENRAFFLE.COM: All bets refunded OK.
To The Golden Raffle bettors: EVERY BET HAS BEEN REFUNDED. Please look at your account history to confirm it. Best regards, Alexis Golzman. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] GOLDENRAFFLE.COM WILL BE SHUTDOWN
Due to the poor interest of people in betting, GoldenRaffle.com will be shutdown. BETS WILL BE REFUNDED ASAP. I'm truly sorry for the lost expectations I may have caused in current players. If you want to send me an e-mail, you can now use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Alexis Golzman --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] E-gold Growth
The number of accounts with more than 1 oz of e-gold has grown past 5000 for the first time: http://www.e-gold.com/stats.asp The number of accounts with more than 10 grams has now grown to 11,629 for the first time: http://www.e-gold.com/stats.html SnowDog --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Nothing That Glitters Is DigiGold (fwd)
Much as I'd love to post this whole thread on the eZine, I think it better that someone should purchase the film and book rights and syndicate a sitcom production company. The title of the thread alone is a good for a pilot episode... Think of the gold advertising venue this could create for the MM's and merchants, better than soap operas. This is all just a secret plan to promote the GBC's. Dave Brooks Bricks of Gold eZine --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] RE: Nothing That Glitters Is DigiGold (fwd)
Eventually they will all end up on the Jerry Springer show. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Nothing That Glitters Is DigiGold (fwd)
Some corrections on the wired article: -- Forwarded Message -- Date: vrijdag 6 juli 2001 14:48 -0400 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Nothing That Glitters Is DigiGold Declan, In the documents that Barry Downey filed in the Anguillan court, my name gets mentioned. You indirectly mention me in your article. I therefore feel it is necessary for me to rectify some of the incorrect statements contained in the filed documents as well as in your article. I will start of by saying that in the 8 weeks that I spent in Melbourne, Barry Downey only showed up for the IRS2000 conference. His reliance on hearsay might explain some of the inaccuracies. Your article contains a number of factual errors: ~~ According to e-mail written by Grigg, another employee "was well and thoroughly seduced by Wajiha and her attractive younger sister." ~~ If you read the various documents closely you will note that the above was written by Barry Downey and *not* by Ian Grigg. > From my position as an alleged seductee the facts are rather simple: Firstly, Wajiha Khan is a good friend and at the time was (and still is) engaged. I do not date women who are engaged. The reason I hung out with her and her sister can simply be ascribed to the fact that they were of my age. Second, Charles did not arrange for me to share an office with Wajiha. In fact he made it quite clear that he did not appreciate me sharing an office with her as it affected her productivity. This makes Downey's statement 100% incorrect. What happened is far from clear, but DigiGold seems to believe Evans and Khan tried to seduce a third employee away from Systemics in the hopes of founding a rival firm. Reid Jackson (G&SR management) was the one who tried to poach me away from Systemics by offering me a job in Melbourne, not Charles Evans. (Reid later -in private email- denied the poaching attempt had occurred. However, more than one G&SR employee was consulted by Reid about the feasibility of "obtaining a 'green card' for Jeroen".) ~~ As the several weeks went by, all work for G&SR and for e-gold by Charles, Wajiha (her sister and brother) and Jeroen ceased and [...] ~~ Reid Jackson wrote in a private email: [...] "During Jeroen's Melbourne visit, he was extremely helpful to us with both technical and non-technical projects in progress at the time. For example: 1. He assisted us during our move into additional office space, helping to assemble new office chairs and other office furniture. 2. He helped us with problems we were having with our mail server. 3. He helped us wire and configure our new phone system. 4. He advised us on the topic of BGP and even called around to try to get the ball rolling for us." [...] Additionally I gave a presentation on UNIX to the two DigiGold employees and the 4 programmers that were developing the next generation OmniPay/e-gold systems. After that I built and configured a new mailserver for G&SR. I might add that much of that work was done at night and in the weekends. This would normally count as overtime. I can't see how this can be characterized as 'work' that 'ceased'. But I can see how someone who was not in the office could be led to believe this nonsense. DigiGold's primary reserve account includes 50,000 grams of gold. That's about 1,800 ounces, worth $482,400 at Tuesday's prices. 50.000 grams is the amount of silver. Gold is 4149,4 grams. Regards, Jeroen ~~~ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:05:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In late September 2000, Ian arranged for Jeroen to come to Melbourne FL for some off-island recreation. This visit turned into a disaster. Initially unbeknownst to Doug, Charles used the visit as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Doug and Ian, whom Doug had always regarded as a most valuable strategic ally and confidant. Charles arranged for Jeroen to share an office with Wajiha (whom had been previously described (correctly) by Charles as a person who would use her physical attractiveness as a tool for manipulation of men). Jeroen was well and thoroughly seduced by Wajiha and her attractive younger sister. As the several weeks went by, all work for G&SR and for e-gold by Charles, Wajiha (her sister and brother) and Jeroen ceased and increasing time at the office was spent in discussions where the
[e-gold-list] Re: Digigold vs Systemics
> There is an article about the Digigold vs Systemics dispute on Wired. > It also contains brief parts about Charles Evans, Gold-Age and EE-Biz. > > http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44967,00.html Written by our good ole friend, Declan. He seems to be finally figuring out what e-gold is actually about. Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Goldmoney can terminate its obligations
On 5 Jul 2001, at 20:00, David Hillary wrote: > Gioldmoney's user agreement states that Goldmoney can terminate it at > will, expect for clauses relating to privacy, limitation of liability, > intellectual property rights and conformity with laws. E-gold can do same if they want to. GoldMoney is just more explicit. Can you really force a business to stay in business if they don't want to ? As long as the gold is secured and the use doesn't lose. Claude http://www.goldcurrencies.ca http://www.ormetal.com == Claude Cormier Public Key http://www.ormetal.com/PGPkey.html == --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Evocash?
On 6 Jul 2001, at 12:18, Viking Coder wrote: > "Compaq unviels Evo..." refers to their new line of workstations... > > http://www.compaq.com/products/workstations/index.shtml > Ouch! That is a dirty trick that only a scammer could have think of... Claude --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Digigold vs Systemics
There is an article about the Digigold vs Systemics dispute on Wired. It also contains brief parts about Charles Evans, Gold-Age and EE-Biz. http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44967,00.html Edwin --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Craig Spencer wrote: > > Dale, > > You pose an important question to understand and answer. But > fortunately > the answer, rightly understood, is not a difficult one. > > > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is > > > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the > > > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes > > > with some perfectly legitimate business. > > > > > A broader view encompasses the definition of "crime" and "criminal". > > > > And who is in charge of interpreting those definitions. > > This appears to be a problem only because you presume that a single > answer > must be applied to and by all people. But each of us are seeking ends > according to our own values. So the answer is that each of us must > answer > this question for ourselves, act according to our own decisions and be > responsible for our decisions and actions. > Hi Craig, I try not to presume anything. But perhaps you persume to know what I think? I was in no way referring to anyone other than e-gold as a sovereign organization with operating rules, procedures, etc. needing development and implementation. E-gold is "caught" between definitions (jurisdictions), pulled hither and yon. Each, as you say, are in charge of his or her own destiny and therefore must make their own determinations (as you well point out). E-gold makes theirs. My comments are meant to be impersonal and philosophical. I do not look for "blanket rules" to be applied to everyone everywhere. That is why I said dilema (not mine, theirs). Some (organizations and bullies) make blanket dogma and doctrine, others (true individuals) do not. > > Do not misunderstand what I have said above as a advocacy or tolerance > for moral relativism. I endorse an absolute moral code. > I do not (endorse an absolute moral code ) as that implies a "set" of "rules of conduct" applicable (forced) on others. "Compelled performance" is another way of defining tyranny. If there be any rule to which I adhere it is the Golden Rule because I realize I am among others who have their own "moral code" or ideal(s) to which they live by within themselves and in dealing with their world. I am in their world and they are in mine. Mutual respect and consideration then are a logical mode of personal conduct. I respect others' views even if I disagree or see otherwise. Tolerance, then for others' views, is akin to foregiveness of my own judgements of them. For example e-gold may be caught between definitions of money laundrying (whatever that is). Client A is in a no-money laundrying jurisdiction and client B is in a second country that does not recognize the definition of money laundrying used by A's country. E-gold is in a third jurisdiction that could care less. In the event of a "dispute" whose definition of money laundrying is e-gold going to use to decide whether or not to freeze metal? This is not my dilema to unravel. I am curious though how e-gold or anyone else would handle this. Simple philosophical curiosity - I'm not pushing for a decision or pronunciamento or the development of a "moral code" of yet another variety. Is e-gold (or one or more of its officers) to become Soloman-like? Wisdom, I believe must prevail over dogma and doctrine otherwise disputes as to validity of dogmas and doctrines (moral judgements; i.e., opinions) will insue. > > But I realize > that each of us must choose (or not) to follow that code by individual > volition. Those who do must strive to live it out and protect ourselves > as best we can from those who don't. > One only needs protection if they live in fear or their perceived world is fear-filled. Thoughts are attractive of that contemplated. I strive to be unafraid in a seeming bizarre world. Since I and everyone else has been taught since childhood to be afraid it takes some practice to undo these indoctrinations or brain-washings. Either our thoughts are creative or this is not a free-willed universe and no one is truly creator of their own destiny. If our thoughts are not creative of our destinies then we are victims of outside influences. Most people won't agree with these views but that is their choice. I do not ask/demand that any believe these beliefs over their own beliefs. Otherwise I would be guilty of trepass or force. Just exploring some philosophical ideals. > > The topic I am concerned with in > this discussion is how those of us who do choose objective morality (of > which I think there is more than one on this list) can do this > effectively. Other people will presumably do other things. > Perhaps there is no such thing as "ojective (outer) morality" which is a judgement of other people's actions outside of our selves. Or maybe my definition is different? There is only the ideal(s) by which we choose to think and live - within our own thinking and world. Perhaps there may be a "subjective (inner) morality" by which we choose to gove
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Dale, I neglected to reply to your last paragraph. > An interesting dilema for e-gold is "Whose definitions are they going to > use?" Why? How are they going to be implemented? Where? At what cost > and especially "By whom?" E-gold is an independent business owned and run by responsible adults. They will use standards (definitions) of their own devising and/or choice. They will do so to advance their own interests. They will be implemented, by themselves, in any way and place they choose. And they will be responsible for the consequences and bear the costs. Best, Craig --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Evocash?
> Yet another reason to stay far, far away from evocash. > Also, more proof that they are anything but a legitimate company. A few links I've found regarding Evocash. http://pub52.ezboard.com/fbusinessopportunities47551frm1.showMessage?topicID=42.topic http://www.topica.com/lists/deep_anarchy/read/message.html?mid=1705650391&sort=t&start=215 http://www.e-hq.co.uk/users/topdosh/banks.html The above link has a line stating "4.Transaction fees are said to be less than E-gold." Evocash charges a minimum of a 1 Evo fee for every transaction. 1 Evo is equivalent to 1 US$. e-gold charges a 1% fee capped at 50 cents. What kind of strange funky math is used to make 1 less than 1/2? I have no problems saying it now... Evocash is a scam. Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Evocash?
> What do you make of this "Compaq unveils Evo..." banner. That is > the only reference to compaq on this site. Very weird ? > > Claude "Compaq unviels Evo..." refers to their new line of workstations... http://www.compaq.com/products/workstations/index.shtml Yet another reason to stay far, far away from evocash. Also, more proof that they are anything but a legitimate company. They are using a well-known/respected name's new product line advert as an endorsement for their service which just happens to have the same name. Anybody who knowingly & blatantly uses a faked endorsement is *not* a legitimate or trustworthy company. Viking Coder Worth Two Cents? http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Evocash?
On 6 Jul 2001, at 0:17, Ken Griffith wrote: > Are there any market makers that accept Evocash? > http://www.evocash.com/ What do you make of this "Compaq unveils Evo..." banner. That is the only reference to compaq on this site. Very weird ? Claude http://www.goldcurrencies.ca http://www.ormetal.com == Claude Cormier Public Key http://www.ormetal.com/PGPkey.html == --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Dale, You pose an important question to understand and answer. But fortunately the answer, rightly understood, is not a difficult one. > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is > > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the > > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes > > with some perfectly legitimate business. > > > A broader view encompasses the definition of "crime" and "criminal". > > And who is in charge of interpreting those definitions. This appears to be a problem only because you presume that a single answer must be applied to and by all people. But each of us are seeking ends according to our own values. So the answer is that each of us must answer this question for ourselves, act according to our own decisions and be responsible for our decisions and actions. Do not misunderstand what I have said above as a advocacy or tolerance for moral relativism. I endorse an absolute moral code. But I realize that each of us must choose (or not) to follow that code by individual volition. Those who do must strive to live it out and protect ourselves as best we can from those who don't. The topic I am concerned with in this discussion is how those of us who do choose objective morality (of which I think there is more than one on this list) can do this effectively. Other people will presumably do other things. > History has a long list of criminals who were never accused of a crime but > instead were publicized as heros or demi-gods. Usury is legal is some > countries but illegal in others just as are prostitution, so-called money > laundrying, etc. A crime in one jurisdiction (arena of specific defining > and definition use) may not be a crime in another. Very good points and examples. Best, CCS --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
I was interested to see on the Web of Trust page about path servers http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/pathserver that I gave earlier that someone has recently gotten a path server going again. http://the.earth.li/~noodles/pathfind.html As an illustration of its operation, looking for a connection between JP May and Laissez Faire books gives the following 7 step path. PATH C05C8523 9BD80D6B 250-7 steps from 0xC05C8523 to 0x9BD80D6B 250-0x9BD80D6B (Laissez Faire Books orders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 250-0xD6A70FA8 (Jorge Codina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 250-0x071CB859 (Jorge Codina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 250-0x3D12068D (Mathias Koerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 250-0x6FD704F8 (John W Noerenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 250-0x28C029AF (Dave Del Torto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 250-0xC33EDFDE (Jeroen C. van Gelderen) 250-0xC05C8523 (JP May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 221 Goodbye. This is really neat! Perhaps we should all generate reputation keys and upload them and try it out. I would suggest the following practice. For the name use your name or whatever pseudonym or code you want. But instead of the conventional e-mail address put "[reputation]" (no quotes) to indicate the intended use of the key. Best, CCS --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Craig Spencer wrote: > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes > with some perfectly legitimate business. > A broader view encompasses the definition of "crime" and "criminal". And who is in charge of interpreting those definitions. History has a long list of criminals who were never accused of a crime but instead were publicized as heros or demi-gods. Usury is legal is some countries but illegal in others just as are prostitution, so-called money laundrying, etc. A crime in one jurisdiction (arena of specific defining and definition use) may not be a crime in another. An interesting dilema for e-gold is "Whose definitions are they going to use?" Why? How are they going to be implemented? Where? At what cost and especially "By whom?" -- Life, Love and Laughter, Dale Pond Sympathetic Vibratory Physics Sacred Science - Sacred Life http://www.svpvril.com SVP Discussion Forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svpvril/ --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: On "Crooks vs. honest people"
Julian Morrison wrote:
> a) If you do business with unidentified people, you can be dragged into
> their crimes, you can be swindled, and you can help crime in general
> prosper.
Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is
that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the
criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes
with some perfectly legitimate business.
> b) If you force identity and audit trail of all people, you leave people
> no way to bypass pseudocrimes such as being unwilling to be bled white
> by elected thieves. Plus you have to raise your prices to cover the
> workload of playing detective over every transaction.
Right.
> The main problem with (a) assuming you're smart enough not to buy into a
> scam is that of unidirectional anonymity. They know and can tell that
> they dealt with you; you don't know them from Adam.
I don't see why unidirectional anonymity *per se* is a problem. Unless
you mean it allows the innocent, identified party to be scapegoated for
the crimes of the unknown. ???
> So the solution
> focusing on (a) is *bidirectional anonymity*. For example an automated
> MM system that matches "want to buy" against "want to sell" in such a
> way as to make an audit trail impossible.
That would be a good business. But I don't see it as addressing the
crime problem.
> The problem with (b) comes in two parts: first, the state requiring you
> to prevent pseudocrimes, second the waste of time and effort. To the
> first part, the solution is validated pseudonymous reputation. To the
> second, an external service providing reputation services. You only deal
> through them, and so you can evaluate the trustworthiness of a mask
> without being required to inform on its wearer.
I think this is a good and promising idea. But I am not sure it is a
complete solution. It would have to be tried and its consequences
observed.
For this end I have in the past made the following suggestion to a few
persons on this list. Establish a functioning PGP path server and sell
access to its services. [I lack the means, both financial and
intellectual, to do this myself.] MMs or whoever could use this tool in
many ways of their own devising to verify nymous reputation.
A path server is somewhat like existing key servers but finds and
provides
endorsement paths between PGP keys. There have been path servers in
operation in the past
http://www.rubin.ch/pgp/pathserver
but they seem to have gone defunct.
People would generate PGP key pairs ("reputation keys"). [If they wish
these might lack real names or e-mail addresses.] People who know each
other
personally might endorse each other's reputation keys with their own.
It is
possible to verify possession of the private key of such a key pair
absolutely
and anonymously.
Consider the following illustration (only one of many) of how this might
be
used. Every MM has a core of tested and trusted customers. The MM
would
endorse their reputation keys with his/her own. A potential customer
would
give the MM the public part of his/her own repuation key and demonstrate
possession of the private part thru a challenge-response. The MM could
then look it up on the path server and find how well connected it is
with
his/her own. The MM would use the results to evaluate the potential
anonymous customer using criteria of his/her own devising. For example
I might decide that I will not deal with people who have endorsement
chains (of people who have no been know to endorse crooks) longer
than 3 or who do not have at least 2 independent chains of length
less than 5.
The idea behind this is that crooks are likely to know only more crooks
and so they will be unlikely to secure endorsements from people close to
trusted reputation keys. For this reason people who are found to have
endorsed the keys of crooks would lose reputation. Yet it only takes
about 5 person-to-person steps to go between any two people on earth so
it should be possible to verify anyone's reputation by this method.
I find the potential in this very promising. But how effective this
method actually would be can only only be discovered by trying it.
Best,
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Goldmoney can terminate its obligations
Gioldmoney's user agreement states that Goldmoney can terminate it at will, expect for clauses relating to privacy, limitation of liability, intellectual property rights and conformity with laws. TERMINATION This Agreement will remain in effect and will bind both the User and GoldMoney until such time as the User's Holding is closed. GoldMoney may in its entire discretion cancel this Agreement and terminate the User's rights and obligations in terms of this Agreement, for any reason whatsoever, including, without limiting the extent of the aforegoing, any breach of this Agreement by the User. The rights and obligations of the parties to this Agreement in terms of clause XII, XIII, XIV, and XXI shall survive the termination of the Agreement. what is the point of a user agreement if it says that? --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Evocash?
V-Funds.net has also bitten the dust: "Due too refusal from E-gold and OSgold to co-operate with Vfunds to allow our members to fund in and cash out of their accounts we no longer can provide our Vfunds service. We will be shutting down the server soon and all members with a balance will have their gold refunded within the next 36 hrs free of charge. " "We are extremely sorry too all our loyal members for this major inconvenience and hope we will be able to solve these issues with Egold and OSGold and re-release soon. " I find two things odd: 1) How is it that their failure can be blamed on E-Gold and OSGold? 2) How are they going to refund 'gold' to their customers? SnowDog --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[e-gold-list] Re: Evocash?
> They might actually be a legitimate company. However, I highly recommend > *against* ever using Evocash in any capacity. There are a few more points about Evocash: 1) The only contact number is a fax number in Nevada, linked to the country of Dominica without a specific mailing address. 2) For a while, they were advertising 'GoldenRollerCoaster' on their website, which was an HYIP/scam. 3) They are rumored to be the same people who run 'Income-Ventures', another HYIP. 4) There is no way to verify anything about them. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
