Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft

I think that this debate has been revisited sufficiently
that we're no longer making good progress. I am looking 
for ways of wrapping up the discussion, rather than repeating
(endlessly) arguments made and remade again.

There is a significant divergence of views, and many remain
steadfast that the original tradeoff in 2109 between privacy
and capabilities are well considered.

I think there's also a significant counter-opinion
developing. I would suggest -- as an alternative to
continuing on the mailing list -- that we ask those
who would prefer to see a different resolution on the
issue of unverifiable transactions to write a separate
internet draft, outlining what the protocol should say
instead and addressing the issue of user privacy to the
same detail as RFC 2109. Perhaps if we can see a complete
design which adequately protects user privacy, we can
consider the alternative with sufficient technical detail.

Is this OK? Can we close down discussion on this point until
we have a fully worked out alternative from someone?

Thanks,

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter