From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Isn't this what I said?
Yes, I agreed with you with regard to the law as it is in the UK. I
corrected my mistake.
Mark
Marcel Popescu wrote:
> It does appear that the law in England is not as "demanding" as I believed:
>
> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/legaltender.htm
>
> < opinion, legal tender is not a means of payment that must be accepted by the
> parties to a transaction, but rather a legally def
On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 03:23 AM, Marcel Popescu wrote:
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark cited the Bank of England, not U.S. law. I don't know what
British
law is in this regard.
It does appear that the law in England is not as "demanding" as I
believed:
http://www.bankofen
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mark cited the Bank of England, not U.S. law. I don't know what British
> law is in this regard.
It does appear that the law in England is not as "demanding" as I believed:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/legaltender.htm
<>
Mark
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 09:26 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 06:19 PM 12/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Errata: "companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment" is,
of
course, "companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment".
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Marcel Po
At 06:19 PM 12/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
Errata: "companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment" is, of
course, "companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment".
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Marcel Popescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reason the IOUs emitted by the B
Errata: "companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment" is, of
course, "companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment".
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Marcel Popescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reason the IOUs emitted by the Bank of England were *initially*
accepted
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim May wrote:
> [At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
> from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ... well,
> it's obvious what the "instead of" ought to be.]
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Peter Fairbrothe
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nearly all forms of money are more like IOUs than any other single
> description.
Right.
> With British money it is the Bank of England (so I hear,
> but maybe it has changed to some sort of U.K. reference) that says
> "Anyone who presents this IOU for 10 po
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 10:31 AM -0800 on 12/5/02, Tim May wrote:
> [At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
> from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ...
> well, it's obvious what the "instead of" ought to be.]
:-).
Th
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:31 AM, Tim May wrote:
Swiss banks could take in and dispense from accounts without any
identity credentials (the passwords and equivalents to signatures and
chop marks) because of this basic point about Bayesian probability.
Swiss banks were not trustworthy
[At least 4-5 of Hettinga's e$/digibucks/qwatloos chat lists elided
from this distributioninstead of creating so many lists, ... well,
it's obvious what the "instead of" ought to be.]
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 06:17 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
OK, suppose we've got a bank that i
12 matches
Mail list logo
