On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 11:27:53PM -0700, cyphrpunk wrote:
Just presented at ICETE2005 by Daniel Nagy:
http://www.epointsystem.org/~nagydani/ICETE2005.pdf
This is a thorough and careful paper but the system has no blinding
and so payments are traceable and linkable. The standard
I will provide a detailed answer a bit later, but the short answer is that
anonymity and untraceability are not major selling points, as experience
shows. After all, ATMs could easily record and match to the user the serial
numbers of each banknote they hand out, yet, there seems to be no
Thank you for the detailed critique!
I think, we're not talking about the same Chaumian cash. The referred 1988
paper proposes an off-line system, where double spending compromises
anonymity and results in transaction reversal. I agree with you that it was
a mistake on my part to deny its
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 07:34:34PM -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
At 12:32 AM +0200 10/21/05, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
Could you give us a reference to this one, please?
Google is your friend, dude.
Before making unitary global claims like you just did, you might consider
consulting
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:19:49PM -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
BTW, you can exchange cash for goods, or other chaumian bearer certificates
-- or receipts, for that matter, with a simple exchange protocol. Micali
did one for email ten years ago, for instance.
Could you give us a reference to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 03:36:54PM -0700, cyphrpunk wrote:
As far as the issue of receipts in Chaumian ecash, there have been a
couple of approaches discussed.
The simplest goes like this. If Alice will pay Bob, Bob supplies Alice
with a blinded proto-coin, along with a signed statement, I
One intresting security measure protecting valuable digital assets (WM
protects private keys this way) is inflating them before encryption.
While it does not protect agains trojan applications, it does a surprisingly
good job at reducing attacks following the key logging + file theft pattern.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 02:58:32PM -0700, cyphrpunk wrote:
Digital wallets will require real security in user PCs. Still I don't
see why we don't already have this problem with online banking and
similar financial services. Couldn't a virus today steal people's
passwords and command their
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 02:18:43PM -0700, cyphrpunk wrote:
In particular I have concerns about the finality and irreversibility
of payments, given that the issuer keeps track of each token as it
progresses through the system. Whenever one token is exchanged for a
new one, the issuer records
