[e-gold-list] Re: Explain Please

[jpm]

>> 400 ounce bars don't weigh 400 ounces.  They are all difference
>> weights and prices, its just approximately 400 ounces.
>
>Good point... but does it really matter?

I'm not sure .. well, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure

Really, I can think of little more critical.


Currently, e-gold Ltd. asserts

http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html

that the amount of physical metal in the reserve is

56,000.00

Quite simply: that is wrong.  Use the word "lie" if you prefer.

There's never been a 400 oz bar made that weighs 40 ounces.

WHATEVER e-gold's reserve level is, we can state definitively that it 
is *not*  56,000.00 ounces.

Maybe Jim or Doug know what e-gold's total of physicla metal is, but 
it is not 56,000.00 ounces.

(It is inconceivable that by sheer coincidence


> The reserve currently exceeds the
>circulation by 789.84 oz. All 140 bars would have to be 5.64 oz., or 1.4%,
>underweight in order for the reserve to exactly equal the circulation.

'400 oz bars' vary by 50 or 100 ounces ... they are only 
"approximately" 400 ounces.

'400 oz' is just a colloquial term.

When you buy one, you choose one of a weight you like, and pay for it 
appropriately.

Say i sold you a 400 oz bar from my home safe .. you weight it (let's 
say it is 431.876238 ounces) and then you pay me 431.876238 * the 
current price of gold.

For that matter, LGD bars have sundry finenesses.  it might be a .95 
bar that weighs (on the scale) 370.15 ounces.  Obviously, you only 
pay for 351.6425 ounces of gold, in that case.

If you are rich, and you go buy say 10 mixed LGB bars, you will get 
sundry weights and finenesses.

You could very, very easily pick up say 100 bars, all of which were 
say around 375 ounces.  Conversely, you could pick up 100 all of 
which were 425 ounces.

Maybe all the e-gold bars are as light as possible, and it is all 
just a clever trick they are playing until someone realizes it! :)





> I
>don't think that the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) would allow
>a discrepancy that large in their London Good Delivery Bars.

I'm not sure what you mean here:  the LBMA, or anyone who owns gold 
(say, a bank) that is composed of 400oz bars, doesn't go "we have 100 
bars, that is 4000.00 ounces!"

Each bar has a specific known weight [look on one of those 
whatchamacallit certificates which is a proxy for a specific bar, for 
instance], and if you are Bank Of England and you have 'about a 
tonne' of gold in reserves, you would have say 1.0001238723272631 
tonnes of gold.

The weight is arrived at by piling all the bars onto a really big 
scale, and weighing it.  Or, writing down the weights of all the bars 
and adding it up with a calculator.

{Just as a scientific curiosity, I don't even think a bar could me 
MADE weighing exactly 400. ounces to say 1 thousandth of an ounce 
precision ... except maybe in a excellent lab.}


>How many
>people would trust a bank whose packs of 100 $1 bills only contained 99 $1
>bills?

No relevant analogy.

400oz bars are utterly unlike 1 ounce coins (which contain an ounce, 
pretty accurately) or some (not all) kilobars, which are usually 
ditto.

The term '400 oz' is just a convenience term .. they are just chunks 
of gold, varying wildly in weight.

Anyway, the extremely simple fact remains:

56,000.00 is definitely, absolutely not e-gold's total mass of gold in reserve.

(I hope I'm mistaken in some way I don't understand.)



>
>
>Viking Coder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000852


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

[e-gold-list] Thankyou

[GoldCom Admin.]

Well, it took a little over 20 minutes to download all my E-mail this
morning -- most of it consisted of hundreds of messages (sent in
response to my posting yesterday on the list and on free-market.net)
received in the past 24 hours offering sympathies/advice/and the like
concerning the SS raid and the partial return of my property.

Thank you everyone for your support, and thank you to everyone who has
sent messages and voice mails over the past serveral months -- pitching
in words of support. I haven't haven't had time to respond to all the
messages that I've receive, but we read or listen to all the messages
that we receive. Thank you! my wife and I greatly appreciate it.

I would also like to give special thanks to JMR & JPM  -- two wonderful
individuals whom I have yet to meet, yet have provided strong support &
encouragement in word and deed as if they were a close family member.

Thanks again, and note that although Gold-Age is dead, other things are
rising in its ashes.


PECB

---
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: Gold-Age SS-Raid Update 07/24/2001

[Steve Schear]

>with the tower, to reset the CMOS -- I'll have to get specs from HP
>before I go taking this baby apart. In short it's going to take quite a
>bit of time and effort to figure out if there is any data intact for me
>to recover on either of these machines. This kind of destructive
>data-mining was totally unecessary, since I gave them all the passwords
>to the various systems they took.

All good reasons to use thin clients at you place of business and keep all 
data bases offshore, backed-up though a distributed network and encrypted.

steve


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

[e-gold-list] transit numbers

[Andrew McMeikan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Folks,
  e-gold account http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216 is
collecting donations for an ICANN Individuals Constituancy.

Someone has offered funds but needs an exchanger that can provide a
transit number for electronic transfer.

Could someone who can offer as close to zero fees as possible please
facilitate this exchange by emailing me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
banking details, this is a good cause (more net.fair.representation )

This particular donar is located in Grapevine Texas, just in case
there is someone nearby.

   cya,   Andrew...



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBO18jELGgm4xSOhJaEQK+rACbBw6yPk4C704g4Ya9Gi2tlT876B4AoNe0
l75GRZj3aCYVJ5SGmy+iaebP
=ELWZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

---
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: Explain Please

[C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc.]

On 25 Jul 2001, at 23:33, Viking Coder wrote:

> > 400 ounce bars don't weigh 400 ounces.  They are all difference
> > weights and prices, its just approximately 400 ounces.
> 
> Good point... but does it really matter? The reserve currently exceeds
> the circulation by 789.84 oz. All 140 bars would have to be 5.64 oz.,
> or 1.4%, underweight in order for the reserve to exactly equal the
> circulation.

I think that what JP meant is "How come the 140 bars in reserve 
are exactly 56,000 ounces when we know that bars never exactly 
weigh 400 oz. each."

I agree with you that 5.64 oz is certainly over the tolerance of the 
LBMA to call them Good Delivery 400 oz bars.




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: Explain Please

[C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc.]

On 26 Jul 2001, at 12:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> How come all the 400 oz bars weigh 400. ounces?
> 
> 400 ounce bars don't weigh 400 ounces.  They are all difference 
> weights and prices, its just approximately 400 ounces.

Good point JP.

I have always heard that gold bars could weight 400 oz plus or 
minus a fraction... But maybe there are also bars that weight 
exactly 400 oz. 



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: Explain Please

[Viking Coder]

> >If the Stats page does NOT show incentive payments, then HOW is it possible
> >that there are numerous payments below 1 milligram. This is less than 0.8
> >cents USD. It doesn't make any sense.

My hypothesis... people testing their shopping carts and/or automated
payment systems by passing 0.1 oz. spends through them - just my guess
though...


> How come all the 400 oz bars weigh 400. ounces?
> 
> 400 ounce bars don't weigh 400 ounces.  They are all difference 
> weights and prices, its just approximately 400 ounces.

Good point... but does it really matter? The reserve currently exceeds the
circulation by 789.84 oz. All 140 bars would have to be 5.64 oz., or 1.4%,
underweight in order for the reserve to exactly equal the circulation. I
don't think that the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) would allow
a discrepancy that large in their London Good Delivery Bars. How many
people would trust a bank whose packs of 100 $1 bills only contained 99 $1
bills?


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: Mystery Micro-Spends

[Jay W.]

hi ken - no conscious decision one way or the other on that one - it 
just fell out that way. incentive payments are tracked separately from
user to user spends.
jay w.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Just curious, Jay, but why aren't the progeny spends included in the
> statistics?

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

[e-gold-list] Mystery Micro-Spends

[Ken Griffith]

Since there are quite a few MLM companies and affiliate programs using
e-gold as their payment mechanism, it is quite possible that they make up a
significant portion of the microspends.

Just curious, Jay, but why aren't the progeny spends included in the
statistics?

Ken


---
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: Explain Please

[Jay W.]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

> If the Stats page does NOT show incentive payments, then HOW is it
> possible that there are numerous payments below 1 milligram. This
> is less than 0.8 cents USD. It doesn't make any sense.

did you mean "it doesn't make any cents"? ;)

e-gold Ltd. can and does provide the system statistical
data and vouches for its accuracy - but it does not and
will not attempt to explain why account holders spend 
what they spend :)

maybe if you offer a reward for one of those sub penny
payers / payees to step forward you will hear something...
but all i can tell you is that the data is real.

jay w.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQEVAwUBO1+I+syM0YPqVE7FAQG5IAgAhrzVTIoLRjSBQvh26Us16xK1K/urwXI9
2A5080Oqq6IpA4vWEzcXbKctGzPkEqXYubzZW7aI4udKl33xlgXJNBwBBk+rzdBZ
Y6lnwSk1xHNMSX2nRK7tNXJKE2eKaDBv39STNNMghxrNSprNM4gBwL+TFthRuh29
CtaZypvx1EdQky0UaTTNP6DlBuhLPluiSU5gMZjvl8kTgZKQvPgvy5ywh2eTofn2
XiJEuNrS9NqZeBTjGtapc6/9S66hBcnk3MwZ0mRY+02oXkx9e9aveHlVfDwnoHjN
qPvT3oxVYDuZlyY5OFUhzIXI0Y8Dh+iFhgL6OzVRKd3h9SQt4HW1dQ==
=Crg/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

---
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: Explain Please

[jpm]

>If the Stats page does NOT show incentive payments, then HOW is it possible
>that there are numerous payments below 1 milligram. This is less than 0.8
>cents USD. It doesn't make any sense.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>SnowDog


Absolutely!

And explain THIS!

http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html

How come all the 400 oz bars weigh 400. ounces?

400 ounce bars don't weigh 400 ounces.  They are all difference 
weights and prices, its just approximately 400 ounces.

Some sort of trick here, e-gold???


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

[e-gold-list] Explain Please

[SnowDog]

If the Stats page does NOT show incentive payments, then HOW is it possible
that there are numerous payments below 1 milligram. This is less than 0.8
cents USD. It doesn't make any sense.

Sincerely,

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] actual breaking news:

[jpm]

http://bananagold.com/examples/breakingstory.gif

(look near the bottom)






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000852


---
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: News

[jpm]

>: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>: http://www.bananagold.com/examples/banananews.gif
>:
>
>
>Wonderful JP... you are truly a leader!
>


Hey!  we better cut down that idle list chatter man!  ;)

http://www.bananagold.com/examples/examp.gif

There have already been *MANY* purchases at Bananagold using 
GoldGramsfascinating.





Here's a two-for-one post communication:

http://www.1mdc.com is TAKING OFF.  Check the live stats to see all 
the deposits.

Release 2 of 1mdc.com is in about one week.

Why pay Agio?  Put your e-gold into 1mdc.com.

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

[e-gold-list] waste of a post

[jpm]

>Sorry, your message was not sent out to 'e-gold-list'.
>Your message quotes too many continuous lines of a previous message.
>
>You quoted 11 lines, and this mailing list is set to reject messages
>which quote more than 10 continuous lines of a previous message.
>
>Please resubmit your message, this time quoting fewer lines of the 
>previous message.



for gods SAKE!



---

lyris buster attempt #1:

>A man approaches you with a beautiful stone and tells you it is a
>diamond and requests you buy it from him. You see it is beautiful but
>you are no gem expert. What to do? You ask a few friends and they all



>advise that it certainly looks like a diamond, and their friends agree,
>and the price seems right, so you buy it. $700 later and you decide to



>pop over to the jeweler to find out how you fared. Oh no! its a piece
>of worthless glass! Problem was, the perceived value was MUCH higher
>than the real value.




I fear much of what you are saying is wrong, Goldlist Cynic.  Sorry!

It's like this: price is the last price paid.

{Your diamond analogy is off the beaten track -- that example is
simply fraud.  Say I sold you 100 MSFT shares, giving you the
certificates.  It turns out, they are just fake.  You got ripped off,
and I'm a thief.}

Now, the actual price of diamonds, is a perfect example of how price
is just price.

What is the " ' real ' " value of diamonds?  Almost nothing.

They are useful industry, but trivial to make.  As jewelry they can
eaisly be replaced by perfect glass (same sparkle, colors etc)

The " ' real ' " value of diamonds, and indeed gold, is just what
people are willing to pay.  And that's true of anything.





>Sadly this is how the share market works. Here is a real world example:
>Yahoo! currently has a share capitalization of 10.17 Billion Dollars.
>For the 6 months ended 6/30/01, revenues decreased 28% for a Net loss
>totaling $60M
>http://quote.fool.com/snapshot/snapshot.asp?symbols=YHOO&currticker=YHOO
>So here is a company that has solid material assets of perhaps less
>than $100M and a declining revenue, making a loss of $60M in the last 6
>months... and the shareholders say it is worth 10 billion Dollars!



But this meands nothing, Cynic.  Above, YOU have just given a COGENT
analysis of why YOU think Yahoo is worth X.

"Who cares?"

I happen to agree with you (but so what?)

Who says that a company should be valued by the particular qualities
you mention.  It sounds logical (and I might happen to agree with
you), but so what?

What if someone else says "oh, that's interesting, the Yahoo brand is
seen by 2.3 times the eyeballs as the Ford Motor Company brand,
therefor, it is worth 2.3 times as much"

Please (yawn) do not get into an argument about why YOUR methods for
valuing a company are so correct. That's the point.  It's just an
argument.




>Like I said right in the beginning, "the share price does not represent
>the true value of the enterprise"

In your Yahoo example, you are just saying ...

"the share price does not represent, what I Goldlist Cynic, happen to
think the true value of the enterprise is"

It's just an opinion .. who cares?

I might "know" that Ford Motor Cars is "worth nothing" because I
happen to believe that antigravity engines are about to be invented.

When you use the word "value", it is very simply equivalent to saying
"my opinion"

It is a "value" exactly as in "value judgement"

Thus, when stock analysts sit around and argue, they say things like
"oh, I think that Yahoo is overvalued" or "gee, my analysis shows
that Ford is undervalued" or whatever.

You can subscriube to newsletters that offer lists of "Value stocks"

Of course, those lists are just the opinion of the newsletter writers
as to which stocks at the moment are "undervalued" stocks.

(And that' just opinion.  If the newsletters were always or even
"ever" correct we'd all be trillionaires all the time.)

Saying "the share price does not represent the true value of the
enterprise" is at best equivalent to saying "with some stocks, I or
other individuals think the share price is wildly different from my
opinion of what the share price should be."

But price is price paid.  There's nothing else.

Your ounce of gold is worth $267.50 for exactly one reason: that's
what a broad range of people will liquidly pay for it today.




















- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000852
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000852


---
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: News

[Sidd]

: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: 
: http://www.bananagold.com/examples/banananews.gif
: 


Wonderful JP... you are truly a leader!


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

[e-gold-list] News

[jpm]

http://www.bananagold.com/examples/banananews.gif


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

[e-gold-list] response to Separation of Protocol (fwd)

[Edwin Woudt]

-- Forwarded Message --
Date: wednesday 25 juli 2001 12:13 -0400
From: Ian Grigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: response to Separation of Protocol

Ken,

thanks for the kind words in your recent article
"Separation of Protocol," which I read this morning.

> http://www.goldbankone.com/article.php?sid=129&mode=nested&order=0

It is always good to see when people appreciate a
viewpoint!

I'd like to add some comments.  I don't think I
disagree with anything you wrote, I'd just like
it to go further :-)

And, further we have gone.  When we did our issuance
and trading work in the early days, by issuing bonds
in Systemics ($10 zeroes, traded against a dollar),
we discovered that the Issuer cannot be the software
provider, nor the Operator.

Simply put, people thought that the system lost
credibility if the same people behind the contract
also had control of the technical implementation of
the contract.  We weren't trusted if we were both
the issuer of the dollar and the accounter of the
dollar.

Since then, Systemics has had a pretty firm rule:
We do not Issue.  I'm not talking about toy contracts
such as the Glitter I made up for testing purposes,
nor the marbles that Edwin wrote to test his new
software.  I'm talking about real issuances such as
dollars, metals, bonds and shares.

Slowly but surely, we've managed to get that model
out there.  We are hoping to soon announce the first
issue where the Mint role - the creator of all float -
is actually an external party, without any control
or direction other than contracted instructions from
the Issuer.  I.e., he is not one of us dressed in a
different badge.

When it comes to the software, it is a little more
complex.  I'll throw in some observations and let
you come to your own conclusions.

Firstly, we practice what you preach.  The entire
protocol for the Ricardo payment system is called
SOX, and it is part of the WebFunds open source
project that we have been setting up for some time.
http://www.webfunds.org/ gets you there, and the
source is there and usable.  The licence is either
a Mozilla or a SISSL, we're not sure which yet.

(We have to make our money somewhere, so we sell
licences to the Ricardo Issuance Server built upon
the protocol.)

Regardless of all that, not everybody agrees with
our way of doing things.  Money is a particularly
vexing product, and there are different models out
there as to how to issue the stuff.  Those models
implicate the software:  the code that we open-
sourced onto WebFunds does not, for example, help
a PayPal-style issuer one jot.

It's not even so useful for the standard GBC issuer.
The "problem" with the Ricardo architecture is that
it requires external third parties, the users, to
have special code, that which is called the WebFunds
client.

Why is this?  It comes down to not trusting the
Operator.  Above, we discussed that the Issuer should
be separated from the software people, as a corollary,
I hope you'll accept that the same applies to the
operator of the software.  We then are left only with
the problem that the operator of the software can
dive in and fiddle the numbers at will.

Remember the infamous 8 account from the
Barings crash?  Any operator can do that.  I could,
hypothetically, right now, dive into the Hansa
Dollar issuance server and create a secret amount
of money and then use it in some nefarious fashion.

So our mission as financial cryptographers is to
construct a system where the operator is not really
given that opportunity, and that is what Ricardo
does.  In the SOX protocol, in the Ricardo payment
cycle, the client software sends a digitally signed
payment instruction.  The issuance server takes
that payment instruction, and creates a digitally
signed receipt.

The receipt is only valid with a validly signed
payment enclosed.  And that's only creatable by
the user.  So, what we've done is to create an
auditable chain of transactions that the operator
cannot forge.  Yes, the operator can create some
magic account, but an audit will spot that and
identify the fraud.

But to achieve all that we need to have clients
out there that distrust the server.  That's WebFunds.
Unfortunately we are now against the rock of the
marketplace:  the mass of users want a website with
a password.

There is a middle ground, wherein we maintain the
architecture necessary to construct a trustworthy
money system, and we give the user a web site.  It's
done by building a web site out of the WebFunds core
system, and having WebFunds users alongside the SSL
protected users.

Put the two of them together and you have a unified
system:  sophisticated users watching the issuer,
and less sophisticated users getting the ease of
access required.  We hope to build this system one
day, soon, and try out the concept.

But, as I said above, not everyone agrees with us.
And, there is another middle ground that allows the
confused merchant to extract harmony out of chaos.

That way is the m

[e-gold-list] RE: Message limits

[Ian Green]

Furthermore, three messages is two, even three too many, for some here! Can
you inform us how many people subscribe to this list (compared to the number
who regularly post)? This might help people realise that one or two messages
(and accordingly, topics) every other day should normally be sufficient,
while not prohibiting the possibility of having to exceed three on rare
occasions. Certainly the brain-dead dispute about 'market' versus "true"
valuation is one that should be moderated out of here!


Ian Green
http://two-cents-worth.com/?107242


> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 10:39 PM
> To: e-gold Discussion
> Subject: Message limits
> Importance: High
>



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

[e-gold-list] Message limits

[Ian Green]

Hi James, et al.

I understand the motive for the new limits, and I (nearly!) always snip any
and all unneccesary lines out of quoted messages, but I believe that
tempting people (such as yourself) to try to address multiple subjects in a
single message is a mistake! Whether we read the digest or receive
individual messages we should always attempt to write a subject line that
accurately reflects the content of the message, and to write a simple and
concise message on that subject and no more.

Maybe a more sensible restriction would be that a person may only respond to
or post a maximum of three topics in one day? ... but, I'm not suggesting
that this should be made the rule!

Another alternative may be a ranking system building on the principle that
has already been implemented where new subscribers are moderated for their
initial messages. Maybe there can be a message cumulative words (or
characters) limit (or number of messages limit if volume measurement is not
possible) beyond which the poster becomes moderated for the day? There could
then be a ranking for known quality posters (such as some of us who have
been here for years) which increases the number before moderation begins. A
number of breaches requiring the moderator to kill the message could be
cause for the member to be demoted to 'ordinary subscriber', or further to
'moderated', like a newbie.

Ian Green
http://two-cents-worth.com/?107242


> -Original Message-
> From: James M. Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 4:32 AM
> To: e-gold Discussion
> Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: eCoin.net Forwarded Message for this e-gold
> list

> postings, and I'm
> going to abide by my own limits of course, so I'll address a few
> subjects in a
> single message.



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

[e-gold-list] open exchange protocol group

[Ken Griffith]

Several of us are going to start an open exchange protocol group for the
purpose of defining a digital currency standard that will allow all the
companies to use it to be compatible with each other.

Anyone interested in participating should contact me for details.

Ken Griffith


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

[e-gold-list] Ok, ok....(Moderator message)

[James M. Ray]

At 05:39 PM +1000 07/25/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Day three of the e-gold list being under siege from Jim Ray - a man 
>at odds with all his laissez faire tendencies which scream from the 
>marrow of his psyche ... LET THE LIST GO FREE!  :)
...
(interesting post deleted -- I wonder how much governance versus
a glitzy-site, etc. will make a difference to the average person? I
suspect it's less than I'd hope, but it's an interesting question IMO).

To answer Khurram and others, the purpose of this experiment was
not to limit debate, but to limit redundancy. Now, posts about it are
beginning to get redundant, so I'll adjust the policy and see what that
does to this giant psychological experiment. ;^) Another purpose I
had in mind was to encourage posters to check and re-check facts
before posting them to a list with hundreds of people, for the same
reason that you now MUST not quote other messages excessively,
and must, yes, take the time to cull irrelevant parts of your message
if you want to send something here, out of courtesy to the list. If I'm
sending mail to one of my friends, and wasting his/her time, that's
one thing, and I do that with one style, but when I'm writing to a list
where I could be -- over the next few days -- wasting the time of OR
entertaining hundreds of people, I take a little more time on it and
do things like spend 5 minutes proofreading or checking my spelling.

I agree with offshoresurfer to a point, but I don't WANT people to be
deleting a lot of posts, because yes, we have people who wish (for
whatever reason) to subscribe to the digest. Digest users (generally
just before leaving, due to un-interesting or excessively-rude posts)
have indeed complained to me, and some still hold on I think...

I'll take the limit up to seven* messages, I can't imagine wanting to
hear from even the most-interesting person here more than that. I
want to also point out that this experiment (even in failure) - sadly,
worked better than a gentle message to the list, exhorting no more
repeated/repetitive messages, duplicate messages and against the
rules too-many-ads messages, etc. please. I may control those in
other ways, if they continue -- which I sincerely hope they don't.

I'm happy to hear any and all other suggestions for what to do from
anyone (preferably directly to me, since managing this list has little
to do with e-gold or gold backed currencies) regarding increasing
the signal-to-noise ratio on this list. Also, if someone can point me
to the archive where more-than-seven interesting messages came
from one subscriber in a 24 hour period, I'll take the limit off all the
way (I may anyway, who knows?). Thanks.
JMR

* once the damthing lets me log into it!


---
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: Pecunix News

[Goldlist Cynic]

I was finished with this topic, but since I still have a post left
today, I thought it would be a shame to waste it ;)

--- "F. Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Forgive me for stating the obvious, but all value is perception, as
> there is no value without a valu-er. So if you say that the [capital]
> market value of a stock does not reflect the value of the enterprise,
> you are talking nonsense, because the market is the ONLY forum where
> people and institutions are able to bid from day to day for equity in
> the enterprise.

Here you are contradicting yourself. you have completely missed the
point. I will type slowly so you can understand.

You: "but all value is perception, as there is no value without a
valu-er."

Me: Exactly right! That is what I am saying! The shareholders
(public)are the valuers, and they set the value as they perceive it. We
agree on this ...yes? If the public believe the company to be doing
well, they pay more for the shares and the value of the shares go up
and vice versa... yes?

You: "So if you say that the [capital] market value of a stock does not
reflect the value of the enterprise, you are talking nonsense..."

Me: No, now you are contradicting your previous statement! We agreed
that the market value of the stock represents the "perceived" value of
the enterprise by under qualified "valuers", not the "true" value of
the enterprise... Let me give you an example:

A man approaches you with a beautiful stone and tells you it is a
diamond and requests you buy it from him. You see it is beautiful but
you are no gem expert. What to do? You ask a few friends and they all
advise that it certainly looks like a diamond, and their friends agree,
and the price seems right, so you buy it. $700 later and you decide to
pop over to the jeweler to find out how you fared. Oh no! its a piece
of worthless glass! Problem was, the perceived value was MUCH higher
than the real value. 

Sadly this is how the share market works. Here is a real world example:
Yahoo! currently has a share capitalization of 10.17 Billion Dollars.
For the 6 months ended 6/30/01, revenues decreased 28% for a Net loss
totaling $60M.  

http://quote.fool.com/snapshot/snapshot.asp?symbols=YHOO&currticker=YHOO

So here is a company that has solid material assets of perhaps less
than $100M and a declining revenue, making a loss of $60M in the last 6
months... and the shareholders say it is worth 10 billion Dollars! I
ask you this, if someone right now offered you a deal:
You must give up everything you own, and in return you may choose a
gift... 10 Billion in your bank right now... or Yahoo! (assume this
person had bought all the yahoo stock and declared it no longer a
public company) 

Like I said right in the beginning, "the share price does not represent
the true value of the enterprise"


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

---
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: List rules (yes, I meant it)

[offshoresurfer]

> I must also object here jim.  It is not uncommon for more then two
discussions to be happenning at the same time on the list.  Aside from that,
it is also not uncommon for people to go back and forth on an issue, the
recent debate of Pecunix is an example.  The only thing that I see a quota
doing is limiting discussion which ironically contradicts the idea of a
discussion list.  Am I wrong here?
>

Jim,

Yes I agree too. I must admit I delete a lot of the posts on this list
without even reading them - I have no interest in gold coins or casions for
example - but  there are also some really interesting threads which will be
severely limited by this restriction. I don't think there were too many
posts before so I don't really see a need for a limit at all. Did somebody
complain?

As regards digest versions... I think human nature will make them almost
always unreadable, and then there's the issue of doing so much cutting and
pasting if you want to reply to something, changing the subject line back to
match the thread etc...

It's much better just to do what I do and subscribe to the full version
using a dedicated free email account. Then when you are travelling or really
busy you don't get bothered by any postings from any list, but when you have
time you can go through everything... gmx (www.gmx.net) for example is
perfect for this because it allows access via both POP3 and webmail.

Respectfully,

offshoresurfer


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

[e-gold-list] money epistemology - and the central clearing mechanism

[jpm]

Day three of the e-gold list being under siege from Jim Ray - a man 
at odds with all his laissez faire tendencies which scream from the 
marrow of his psyche ... LET THE LIST GO FREE!  :)



Have a read of this:


"_The development of note clearing._

"The next stage in the evolution of the banking system would be the 
development of a note clearing system that would arise out of 
bankers' attempts to raise their profits by increasing the demand for 
their notes.

"In the beginning, no banker would accept the notes of other banks 
when such notes were submitted by the public, because to do so would 
make rivals' notes more acceptable and raise his competitors' profits.

"But any two banks could make themselves jointly better-off by 
agreeing to accept each other's notes. Each bank would benefit, 
because the public would more readily accept the notes of either of 
the two banks, given the knowledge that tha other bank would accept 
the notes at par as well.

"The notes of those two banks would thus become slightly more 
attractive than alternative media of exchange such as gold or the 
notes of other banks.

"Thus additional bank pairs would be formed, and it would become 
increasingly apparent that the easiest way to organize the note 
exchange system would be to meet regularly at a central clearing 
session where the banks would hand back each others' notes and settle 
the differences. In this way a central clearing system would evolve 
out of the banks' own private self-interest.

"The clearing system is important because it would provide further 
restraint on the ability of any one bank to overissue its notes. 
Without the clearing system a bank that overissued would face a 
reserve drain only from the general public returning it's notes for 
specie, and it might take some time for this to force the bank to 
restrain its issues.

"Once the clearing system was in place however, a bank issuing more 
notes than the public wanted would also face reserve losses at the 
central clearing sessions.

"These losses would occur as the public deposited extra notes at 
other banks and those banks returned them to the issuing bank.  A 
bank that overissued notes would thus lose reserves through two 
channels--through direct redemption by the public, and through 
indirect redemption via the clearing system--but the latter channel 
would be likely to operate more quickly."


--- that is an extract from Kevin Dowd, _Laissez Faire Banking_, 
Routledge, 1993, page 29 in the paperback edition of 1996.

(Buy it: 
http://www.planetgold.com/books/productinfo.asp?ID=665&TID=&CID=&start 
=Dowd&Page=1&PageSize=10 )



The above is an extract from an outstanding section, _The Evolution 
of a Free Banking System_, which goes through step by step, what will 
happen, when free market laissex faire capitalism operates on the 
function of banks [or someone] issuing money.

It starts with barter, moves through gold, then coins, then 
banknotes, then competetive issuers, then central clearing [the step 
quoted above], and then onto banking, option clauses, a liquidity 
market .. at which point the universe has perfect money.

{Depressingly Dowd then explains how governments step in and cock this up.}


My hypothesis:

GBCs will progress through the exact "Dowdian Stages"
of the spontaneous growth of a money system, outlined
by Dowd in his book _Laissez Faire Banking_.



I have been saying this for years since GBCs were only in the early 
"Dowdian Stages"

Currnetly GBCs are in the 'competetive issuers' stage (here comes 
e-bullion, GoldMoney etc)

In my opinion, there is no doubt that the next stage -- the next "big 
thing" in GBCs (maybe 1-3 years from now) will be the evolution of a 
central clearing mechanism, which will be quite exciting.

There will then be intense competetive pressure between GBCs to have 
better and better governance, and better and better other-qualities 
that users will demand (eg, users may demand cheap bailing in/out, as 
there is noise about currently  once there is a central clearing 
mechanism, there will be much more pressure on to preform well on 
that or any other competetive criteria).

JPM






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000852


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