* James A. Donald:
> Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
> that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
> secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
> a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
> or which ones signed?
What about this?
Ch
"James A. Donald" writes:
-+---
| Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
| that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
| secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
| a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
| or whic
> Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
> that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
> secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
> a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
> or which ones signed?
Yes there are a number of ways. Usually t
Is there a way of constructing a digital signature so
that the signature proves that at least m possessors of
secret keys corresponding to n public keys signed, for n
a dozen or less, without revealing how many more than m,
or which ones signed?
---