[Webfunds-users] it works!

Sat Sep 4 22:29:13 1999

Hi David,

> I got webfunds running a while ago and now I figured out how to make it
> work!  So I have made some 0 and non-0 payments to myself.  

Great!  Any changes to the instructions?

> What can I do next?  Is real digigold working?  I saw some digigold being
> passed around on the e-gold list, is there any of that left for me to try?

The real DigiGold is working fine, but mine is not,
therein lies a tale which I won't bore you with,
but suffice to say, I'll duck sideways on that and
hope someone with disposable DigiGold can satisfy
you.

> I'm still shaky on a lot of details.  What is a digigold account, of the
> kind I create with "Add Account"?

In Ricardo, an account is a shared set of transactions
between client and server.  It is based on a public/private
key pair, where the client maintains the private key and
registers the public key with the server.  Then, using
the private key, you can sign payments *out* of the account.
Somebody else has to sign a payment into your account.

So, when you add an account, WebFunds creates a key pair,
registers the public key, and awaits the next instruction.

> The balance of an account is always 0
> or negative, for obvious reasons during the test.  But what would it mean
> if one of these had a positive balance,

It would mean that the client has a receipt from the server
that records a transfer into the account.

> and where would that balanace be
> stored?  On my hard drive, or at Systemics?

This is a tricky question.  Are you asking on legal grounds,
on bit grounds, on cryptographic grounds, control or access,
or what?

The real answer is neither, the value is a shared arrangement
between the client and the server, both have signed instructions
supporting their view of the transaction.  In practice, we can
answer "the balance is on the hard drive / server / Nevis / Internet"
all depending on who is asking the question, and what model they
have in their head.

One thing I would say is that there is no balance at
Systemics, we are just an outsourced accounting arm.

> Why are there different
> accounts,

The real reason for different accounts is one of:

   * the accounts are "lightweight" being intended to
     be created on the fly and dumped as quickly.
   * there are some applications that want this.
   * because we can?
   * why aren't there different accounts?

Take your pick :)

> associated with particular contracts? 

What you are looking at is an arrangment where you add
a contract, then add an account to that contract.  Forget
that image if you can, because it is about to change.

The change that is currently being worked on is to reverse
that image, such that the hierarchy is account then contract.
The reason for the change is many-fold which I might cover in
some other post.

So, in the future, you will add accounts, and each account
will be capable of holding any contract.  You only need one
account, and WebFunds decides to offer you more, which you
might not use.  I'm working on an application that will
create a single account and then hide it totally.  So, in
brief, the way the accounts are arranged is probably a
client decision, if you don't like it, you can change it.

> Is Digigold always a bearer payment?

No, you can set a target, or leave it empty.  It's like a
cheque (check).

> "Bearer" doesn't work, I must select
> a Target from the menu.  Does this get ignored, or does it make the
> digigold only payable to that target?  How could it, when I can create
> targets at will?

That's a bug :(  You should be able to set a target or
leave it blank.  Bug me about this in a week or so, when
I finish putting the bits back together.

>
> P.S. e-gold always avoids using the term "Deposit", since they're not a
> bank.  You should too.

Hmm, interesting point that would take several emails
to discuss.  What do you suggest?

iang

> This message is placed in the public domain.
Can I take my copy out of the public domain?  :-)