Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

Roy M. Silvernail wrote: I was thinking more of the rumor that Longhorn's filesystem would start at '/', removing the 'X:' and the concept of separate drives (like unix has done for decades :) ). When I first saw this discussed, the consensus was that it would break any application that expected t

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is what I love about the Internet -- ask a question and get silence but make a false claim and you get all the advice you can possibly eat. Yup. give wrong advice, and you look like a fool. correct someone else's wrong advice, and you make them look foolish (unless

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

Roy M. Silvernail wrote: I'd thought it was so Microsoft could offer an emulation-based migration path to all the apps that would be broken by Longhorn. MS has since backed off on the new filesystem proposal that would have been the biggest source of breakage (if rumors of a single-rooted, more *n

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

Dave Howe wrote: Roy M. Silvernail wrote: I'd thought it was so Microsoft could offer an emulation-based migration path to all the apps that would be broken by Longhorn. MS has since backed off on the new filesystem proposal that would have been the biggest source of breakage (if rumors of a singl

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money

At 5:27 PM -0400 10/19/04, R.A. Hettinga wrote: >David Somebody named David, apparently... ;-) Shoot me now, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money

--- begin forwarded text To: "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money) From: Somebody at a Central Securities Depository :-) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:31:10 +0100 i buy the argument that transacti

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:27:20 -0700, James A. Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Two problems: Kinda... > 1. Instantaneous and complete transfer is irrevocable, thus > attractive to ten million phishing spammers, virus witers etc. Instantaneous and complete transfer of cash to a mugger, burgla

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

-- On 12 Oct 2004 at 10:52, R.A. Hettinga wrote: > A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the closer we > get to transaction instantaneity, the less counterparty > identity matters at all. That is, the fastest transaction we > can think of is a cryptographically secure glop of bits that

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 9:49 AM -0400 10/12/04, John Kelsey wrote: >Hmmm. I guess I don't see why this story supports that argument all >that well. More like the straw that broke the camel's back, admittedly. A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the closer we g

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

>From: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 8, 2004 7:14 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money) >Okay. So I'm coming to the conclusion that book-entry settlement

RE: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:14:08 -0400 Okay. So I'm coming to the conclusion that book-entry settlement, with its absolute requiremen

Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)

Okay. So I'm coming to the conclusion that book-entry settlement, with its absolute requirement for both "identity" and float between transactions, is becoming more and more *un*-safe to use as internet ubiquity increases. Anyone want to pick up the other side of this and tell me why not? No bugb