> That is why GoldMoney holdings are called "holdings" and not > "accounts". I agree that if a GoldMoney holding really is title to a > specific gold object, then it is "gold money", as opposed to a gold > liability.
Well that is what the user agreement says. > As you know, I simply don't believe that GM presently meets the > conditions required for a GM holding to constitute true title. Why? WHat exactly in the user agreement should be changed so its constitutte true title. I read it many times and it seems clear. > doesn't help that the patent is a confused mess that talks about the > holding balances being "liabilities of the central clearing house". > You have to be honest here, Claude. I agree here.. The patents seems not clear and do not seems to match exactly the user agreement. But as far as I am concerned, the user agreement is what counts. Beside, keep it mind that GoldMoney has two other patents pending...Maybe one of them describe the current system. I can only think that their ideas have evolved with time. > GM today claims that a holding > balance is NOT a liability. Yes that what the user agreement says. And that is what would stand in court. I own the gold. Period. >But the patent says that holding balances > are "liabilities of the central clearing house". Possibly.... but who cares... We just have to wait to see if they will have new patents that match the current GoldMoney system. I am not a lawyer and have not studied these patents... cause again, as far as I am concerned, what stands between me and GoldMoney is the User Agreement. >That means that > GoldMoney today is NOT the system that the patent describes. Possibly... and again maybe it is what the new patents (assuming they get some) will be. We will know when/if we see them. > Even if you don't grant my premise that an undifferentiated claim on > part of an object does not constitute clear title, you still have to > admit that the GM patent is self-contradictory. You are possibly right on the patent issue... > If GoldMoney improve their system to grant true title to stored gold > objects then I will be more than happy to hail GoldMoney as the first > and only custodial gold money currency. Until then it is just a > deposit currency wearing lipstick. That is where we disagree... I think that GoldMoney has all it needs in regards to clarity on gold ownership. I see only one thing missing: Real time audits of the vaults content. Claude Ormetal Inc. --- 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.
