From:	David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject:	Cash, Credit and Crime
Date:	Wed, 7 Jul 1999 00:30:00 -0700

Date sent: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 00:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Cash, Credit and Crime
To: shadowrn@*********.org
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org


> > > Secondly, credsticks aren't designed to create money. They only
> transfer it. As I said, it's called double-entry accounting. For each
> credit to your stick, there has to be an equal debit somewhere else.
> >
> > It seems to me that this method is more cumbersome than linking an
> account to the credstick and treating it as any other (person-linked)
> account with associated credstick.
> > Gurth@******.nl
>
> Cumbersome, yes, but that ain't the point. The POINT is to have
> traceless money. Why else would you have something like that? I mean,
> really - all anyone would have to do to create a total police state
> would be to create the credstick concept and NOT have certified
> credsticks or hard cash. Certified credsticks allow corps and
> governments and other such people to do naughty things without being
> caught, and that doesn't exactly work with your account-linked concept,
> Gurth.
>
> So, sure, this may be more cumbersome, but it's a hell of a lot better
> from a runner's (or a runner-hiring-corp's) point of view.
>

I was one of the first to put forward the account linked certified credstick. As
I see it a the account linked method is traceless, there are only two people
who know the amount in the account, the holder and the bank, and only the
holder knows who controls the funds. Yes, the bank may have a record of the
transactions, the duration or more likely the lack there of would be part of
the "services" provided by the issuing bank. But a short term record must be
kept to make the stick only system work. The system permits a the holder to
use the stick in the same number of naughty things. At the same time it is
more tamper resitant which makes it more acceptable in commerce,
particularly when it is unlikely that legal rememities are available to one or
both parties should tampering be discovered.




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org