On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:47:51PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > In the smart card setting with Brands protocols there is a host > > computer (eg pda, laptop, mobile-phone main processor, desktop) and a > > tamper-resistant smart-card which computes part of the coin transfer > > and prevents double-spending (to the limit of it's tamper-resistance). > > I don't understand which problem are you trying to solve.
The issue the smart-card setting addresses is that people don't, or anyway shouldn't place great trust in closed systems that they, or someone with the technical background necessary can not examine. A smart card is such a closed system. The framework allows the use of smartcards to resist fraud while not making it necessary to for the users to trust the smart-card with their privacy. Privacy is controlled by the more auditable host computer. Adam > Apart for few cypherpunks, People With Real Money and mafia, all of whom > already have all the anonymity they want, sheeple is handled by corporations > whose income depends on non-anonymity. I don't see a market pressure for anon > replacement for credit cards from the consumer side any more that I see > pressure for IPSec'd traffic from Joe FivePack.
