[mrb]

ecash was not truly peer-to-peer. On the contrary, the concept relied crucially on centralization as ecash would have been withdrawn from existing banks & credit card companies: http://web.archive.org/web/19970111163957/http://www.digicas...

In fact, bit gold, RPOW, and b-money (from respectively Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, and Wei Dai) were the only similar ideas predating Bitcoin, but none of them were ever implemented... Which is why one can say that Bitcoin truly is the first implementation of a digital p2p currency, where everything, including the issuance of money, is decentralized.

[jacquesm]

Here is a google books link documenting ecash's peer-to-peer capabilities:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=4TJtnkaWpp0C&pg=PA115&#3...

You could use your bank to host the software, but it was also possible to run your own.

Ecash was very much ahead of the curve at the time and it had features that we can only dream of today.

[mrb]

I do understand that the transfers were peer-to-peer. I could hand you eCash in an offline way, from my device to yours, as if I was handing you a bill, without going through a bank/clearing house network to authorize and validate the transfer.

But the issuance of eCash was still done by the bank. This is what makes eCash not 100% decentralized... I would compare eCash to the "pseudo p2p" Napster file sharing network which still relied on a central server (gasp!) to index the files, which allowed authorities to shut down the "p2p" network by closing down that central server.

[jacquesm]

"Real" cash is also issued centrally but nobody doubts that it can be used in a 'peer to peer' fashion for payments.

Anyway, I think we're well into 'no true Scotsman' territory here.

[Drbble]

Real cash isn't peer to peer, is the point. Anyone can create bitcoin, without going to a bank. You can prefer a different term to p2p if you like, but parent's point was about the complete decentralization, not the word "p2p".