Communicating Conspirators

Bill Frantz
Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:52:05 -0800

At 11:52 PM -0800 11/19/99, Chip Morningstar wrote:
>2) The state of being recognized by some external agency (the king, the
>the bank, etc.) as having title. But this is a tautological definition --
>is that which you have because somebody else says you have it.  In the absence
>of the first attribute (control) this is has no operational meaning in any
>direct sense, other than as an abstract token.  An abstract token is not
>in and
>of itself useless and may have value just as money may have value -- money has
>value to the extant that other entities acknowledge it to have value. However,
>the only way in the end to establish value is by having a market, and if the
>title is not transferable there can be no market and thus no value
>determination (though it does not preclude cases where transfer is
>possible but
>limited or regulated in some way by the authority who adjudicates title, in
>which case a value determination is possible in principle). This second sense
>may be realized electronically (this is what digital cash protocols do, for
>example), but by means which are unrelated to capabilities or ACLs or other
>permission-oriented concepts, since what is being implemented is entirely
>orthogonal to any notion of permission.

How is "title" different from the "rights" described in ERTP: The
Electronic Rights Transfer Protocol?

Bill Frantz       | Internet Explorer, the     | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | hacker's path to your      | 16345 Englewood Ave. | hard disk.                 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA