So back in 1999, in an ecash thread on cypherpunks I claimed:

> I wouldn't say ecash has to use blinding, but I would argue it would be a
> misuse of the word "ecash", if something which was revocable were dubbed
> ecash.

This was in the context of a discussion of digigold (e-gold stored the
physical gold, digigold offered "ecash" backed in that physical gold). 
Digigold ran on Systemics payment server/sox protocol.  Because of inferred
regulatory concerns and patent licensing issues digigold & systemics were
not using blind signatures.  However with systemics sox server, like
bitcoin, you could create multiple accounts on demand and shuffle payments
around for a degree of privacy.  The bitcoin analogy would be the
transaction log lived in the systemics server, so it had a central failure
point, but arguably more privacy as the log was not public.  Also systemics
SOX protocol (Ian Grigg & Gary Howland) had some aspect of bitcoins smart
contract concepts - ricardian contracts. 

(Btw the anonymous reply itself was interesting - that could have been
Nakamoto, the only missing thing from the parts on the discussion room floor
to bitcoin is mathematical inflation control.)

The thread actually started here and then continues here because of a subject
line change and then
more subject line change confusion.

A related thread a few days later also covers Sander & Ta-Shma (which
zerocoin is based on):

there were many more threads about various ecash technologies.


AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to