> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:31:39 -0700
> From: cyphrpunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 2. Cash payments are final. After the fact, the paying party has no
> > means to reverse the payment. We call this property of cash
> > transactions _irreversibility_.
>
> Certainly Chaum ecash has this property.
> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:42:47 -0400
> From: Ian Grigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It seems to me that the requirement for after-the-vote
> verification ("to prove your vote was counted") clashes
> rather directly with the requirement to protect voters
> from coercion ("I can't prove I voted in a p
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:42:52 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Calling Lucky a liar is no more illuminating than others calling you
> > an idiot.
>
> You're confusing a classification for an argument. The argument is over.
> You can read it up in the archives. If y
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:30:09 -0700
> From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Re the debate over whether compilers reliably produce identical object
> (executable) files:
>
> The measurement and hashing in TCPA/Palladium will probably not be done
> on the file itself, but on the executable
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:25:40 -0700
> From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Right, as if my normal style has been so effective. Not one person has
> given me the least support in my efforts to explain the truth about TCPA
> and Palladium.
Hal, I think you were right on when you wrote:
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:55:40 +0200
> From: "R. Hirschfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:50:29 -0700
> > From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I'd like the Palladium/TCPA critics to offer an alternativ
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:50:29 -0700
> From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd like the Palladium/TCPA critics to offer an alternative proposal
> for achieving the following technical goal:
>
> Allow computers separated on the internet to cooperate and share data
> and computations
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:25:26 -0700
> From: AARG!Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The only way that TCPA will become as popular as you fear is if it really
> solves problems for people. Otherwise nobody will pay the extra $25 to
> put it in their machine.
Although I support the vote-with-your
> From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:51:24 -0700
> On 29 Jul 2002 at 15:35, AARG! Anonymous wrote:
> > both Palladium and TCPA deny that they are designed to restrict
> > what applications you run. The TPM FAQ at
> > http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/TPM
